representation hearing report PDU/1018a/03 10 October 2012 London Fruit and Wool Exchange, Spitalfields in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/11/02220 and conservation area consent no. PA/11/02221

Planning application and conservation area consent Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (“the Order”).

The proposal 1) Demolition of White’s Row multi-storey car park, 99-101 Commercial Street (Barclays Bank branch), 54 Brushfield Street (The Gun public house), partial demolition of the London Fruit and Wool Exchange behind the retained Brushfield Street facade, and the erection of a six- storey building with a basement, for business, employment and retail use (Use Classes B1/A1/A2/A3 and A4) with landscaping and associated works, together with a new pavilion building for retail accommodation (Use Class A1), (application no. PA/11/02220).

2) Conservation area consent for the demolition White’s Row multi-storey car park, 99-101 Commercial Street (Barclays Bank branch), 54 Brushfield Street (The Gun public house), partial demolition of the London Fruit & Wool Exchange behind the retained Brushfield Street facade, (application no. PA/11/02221).

The applicant The applicant is Exemplar Properties (Brushfield) LLP, and the architect is Bennetts Associates Architects. Recommendation summary The Mayor, acting as Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining these applications, I. grants conditional planning permission, and conservation area consent, in respect of PA/11/02220 and PA/11/02221, for the reasons set out in the reasons for approval section below as required by Article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended), subject to the prior completion of a section 106 legal agreement. II. delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment to issue the planning permissions and agree, add, delete or vary, the final detailed wording of the conditions and any additional informatives as required, and authority to negotiate, agree the final wording, and sign and execute, the section 106 legal agreement. III. delegates authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Director of Development and Environment to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent, if by 16 January 2013, the legal agreement has not been completed.

page 1 IV. notes that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission and conservation area consent will be submitted to, and determined by, Tower Hamlets Council. V. notes that Tower Hamlets Council be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the respective permissions.

Drawing numbers and documents Existing plans 0923_X10_SP00; 0923_X10_PB1; 0923_X10_P00; 0923_X10_P01; 0923_X10_P02; 0923_X10_P03; 0923_X10_P04; 0923_X10_P05; 0923_X10_E01; 0923_X10_E02; 0923_X10_E03; 0923_X10_E04; 0923_X10_E05; 0923_X10_E06; Demolition plans 0923_P12_PB1; 0923_P12_P00; 0923_P12_P01; 0923_P12_P02; 0923_P12_P03; 0923_P12_P04; 0923_P12_P05; 0923_P12_E01; 0923_P12_E02; 0923_P12_E03; 0923_P12_E04; 0923_P12_E05; 0923_P12_E06; Temporary works plan 0923_P20_D_01; Proposed building plans 0923_P20_SP00 A; 0923_P20_PB1 A; 0923_P20_P00 A; 0923_P20_P01 A; 0923_P20_P02 A; 0923_P20_P03 A; 0923_P20_P04 A; 0923_P20_P05A; 0923_P20_P06A; 0923_P20_E01A; 0923_P20_E02A; 0923_P20_E03A; 0923_P20_E04A; 0923_P20_S01 A; 0923_P20_S02A; 0923_P20_S03A; 0923_P20_S04 A; 0923_P20_B01A; 0923_P20_B02A; 0923_P20_B03A; 0923_P20_B04A; 0923_P20_B05; 0923_P20_B06A; 0923_P20_B07A; 0923_P20_B08A; 0923_P20_B09A; 0923_P20_B10; Submitted documents Planning Statement (August 2011); Design and Access Statement and Appendices (August 2011); Transport Assessment, Framework Workplace Travel Plan and Delivery and Servicing Plan (August 2011); Energy Statement (August 2011); Sustainability Statement (August 2011); Statement of Community Involvement (August 2011); Draft Management Strategy (August 2011); Arboriculture Impact Assessment (August 2011); Environmental Statement (Volumes 1-4B) (August 2011); Design and Access Statement Addendum (January 2012); Replacement Environmental Statement Volume 1 [Non-Technical Summary] (21 January 2012); Replacement Environmental Statement Volume 3 [Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment] (January 2012); Environmental Statement Volume 5 [Addendum] (23 January 2012); and, Summary PPS 5 case (23 January 2012).

Reasons for approval

1 The Mayor, acting as the local planning authority, has considered the particular circumstance of these applications against national, regional and local planning policy, relevant supplementary planning guidance and any material planning considerations. He has also had regard to the Tower Hamlets Council Strategic Development Committee reports of 6 March 2012 and 31 May 2012 and the draft reasons for refusal that the Committee subsequently resolved to issue. The reasons set out below are why this application is acceptable in planning policy terms:

Planning application PA/11/02220

 The proposed development would provide an office-led mixed used employment scheme including space for: large floor-plate office; small and medium sized enterprises; and, small- scale ground floor retail accommodation, supporting the function of London’s Central Activities Zone, and creating a wide range of job opportunities and local economic benefits in a highly accessible location. The proposal would optimise the potential of this City Fringe site, and would contribute to the enhanced vitality of Spitalfields. The development, therefore, accords with the NPPF; London Plan policies 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,

page 2 4.7 and 4.12; Core Strategy policies SP01 and SPO6; saved UDP policies CAZ1, DEV3, EMP1, EMP6, EMP7 and EMP8; policies CFR10 and EE2 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft Policy DM15 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 The design of the proposed development is of high architectural quality, and is well resolved in terms of: layout; ground floor uses; connections and permeability; height and massing; architectural appearance and materials; and, public realm and public spaces. The development would optimise the potential of the site, and responds positively to the challenges and opportunities of its City Fringe context. Whilst the development would not cause harm to the Conservation Area or other surrounding heritage assets, it is acknowledged that the development would result in substantial harm to/loss of the undesignated heritage assets at the site. Nevertheless, this harm is outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the scheme. The development, therefore, accords with the NPPF; London Plan policies 2.11, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12; Core Strategy policies SO22, SP09, SP10; saved UDP policies DEV1, DEV8 and DEV28; policy CFR1, CFR12, CON2, CON5, CP50 and DEV2 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft policies DM24 and DM27 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 The development would greatly improve the accessibility of the built form and associated public realm in this part of Spitalfields, helping to remove physical barriers to job opportunities at this site, and promote inclusive access across the development to the new ground floor uses proposed. The development, therefore, accords with the NPPF; London Plan polices 4.12 and 7.2; saved UDP Policy DEV1; policies DEV3 and DEV24 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft Policy DM23 within the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 The proposed development would be of a high standard of sustainable design and construction and would successfully minimise carbon dioxide emissions through energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. Whilst the energy strategy would not achieve the target carbon dioxide reductions sought by the London Plan, or the emerging Tower Hamlets Managing Development DPD, it is accepted that there is no scope for further viable carbon dioxide reductions in this case, and the energy strategy is, therefore, acceptable. The development would also deliver significant urban greening, biodiversity and urban drainage benefits, over the existing situation at the site. The development is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 7.19 and 7.21; Core Strategy policies SP04, SP05 and SP11; policies CP31, DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, DEV8 and DEV9 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft policies DM11, DM13 and DM29 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 Given the urban context of the site, the environmental impact of the development on the amenity of neighbours in terms of: impact on daylight and sunlight; overshadowing; noise; overlooking; and, light spill is acceptable given the general compliance with relevant Building Research Establishment guidance and local policy standards. The development is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan Policy 7.6; Core Strategy policies SP03 and SP10; saved UDP policies DEV2 and DEV50; policies DEV1 and DEV10 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, and draft Policy DM25 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 Transport matters with respect to: travel planning; impacts on the transport network; provision of parking; walking/pedestrian environment; servicing arrangements and contributing to the delivery of Crossrail are acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 8.2 and 8.3; Core Strategy policies SP08 and SP09; saved UDP

page 3 policies T16, T18 and T19; policies DEV12, DEV17, DE18 and DEV19 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft policies DM20, DM21, DM22 and DM23 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 To appropriately mitigate the impact of this development planning obligations have been secured towards: local employment and training; local enterprise; affordable housing; community facilities; public realm, open space and heritage; sustainable transport; and, Crossrail. The development is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 6.5, 8.2 and 8.3; Core Strategy Policy SP13; saved UDP Policy DEV4; Policy IMP1 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and, the Tower Hamlets Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 There are no, or insufficient, grounds to withhold planning consent on the basis of the policies considered and other material planning considerations.

Conservation area consent application PA/11/02221

 The demolition of the White’s Row multi-storey car park, 99-101 Commercial Street (Barclays Bank branch), 54 Brushfield Street (The Gun public house), and partial demolition of the London Fruit & Wool Exchange behind the retained Brushfield Street facade is acceptable in the context of the proposed redevelopment of the site, as permitted by linked planning permission (PA/11/02220). The extent of harm resulting from the demolition of these buildings within the Conservation Area would be outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the associated redevelopment scheme. Demolition would, therefore, accord with the NPPF; London Plan policies 2.11, 7.8 and 7.9; Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy; saved Policy DEV28 of the Unitary Development Plan; Policy CON2 of the Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance; and draft Policy DM27 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

 There are no, or insufficient, grounds to withhold planning consent on the basis of the policies considered and other material planning considerations.

Recommendation

2 That the Mayor, acting as Local Planning Authority, grant planning permission and conservation area consent in respect of application PA/11/02220 and PA/11/02221, subject to the following legal agreement and conditions.

3 Planning application permission – PA/11/02220

Legal agreement

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

Local financial obligations  Training, employment and enterprise £700,000;  Contribution to training centre start-up costs £500,000;  Affordable housing delivery £1,000,000;  Local community facilities £350,000;  Idea Stores, libraries and archives £31,282;  Leisure facilities £101,147;  Public open space and public realm £199,227;  Heritage initiatives £412,152;

page 4  Sustainable transport projects £48,000;  Standard monitoring charge (2%) £68,836;

Regional financial obligations  Crossrail payment £2,026,716 (reduced by 20% if paid before 31 March 2013);  Mayoral CIL charge linked to chargeable development floorspace and treated as a credit towards the above Crossrail payment;

Other local obligations  Public realm and highway improvements (section 278 works);  Submission, approval and monitoring of a travel plan;  Strategy for managed relocation of all existing firms;  Best endeavours to ensure at least 20% of construction jobs are filled by local residents;  Best endeavours to ensure at least 20% of all supplies and services during construction period shall be provided by local suppliers;  Provide minimum 75 local apprenticeships leading to recognised technical or vocational qualifications during construction phase;  Facilitation of work experience and management placements across all associated organisations for a minimum of 144 weeks of placements per year;  Job ready training for local construction staff;  Mentoring both on site and within the local area;  Strategy for local promotion of construction positions;  Provision of a dedicated Spitalfields employment and skills centre (minimum 500 sq.m.) provided rent and service charge free for a minimum of 10 years;  Main occupier of the office floor space enters into a Social Compact to facilitate training, work experience and apprenticeships;  Commitment to ensure that occupiers of the commercial floor space across the development work with the Council to procure 20% of supplies and services locally where possible; and,  Target for all occupiers to achieve a minimum 20% of ‘local employment’ on site.

5 The Mayor agrees that the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment, are delegated authority to negotiate, sign and execute the legal agreement indicated above, the principles of which have been agreed with the applicant, and which includes the heads of terms as detailed above.

Conditions

6 The Mayor agrees that the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment be delegated the authority to issue the planning permission and conservation area consent and agree, add, delete or vary, the final wording of the conditions (and informatives) to secure the following matters:

 Permission to be valid for three years;  Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans;  Submission and approval of a construction management plan;  Details of the following matters to be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority before associated development takes place: i. Shop front design; ii. External shop front signage design code; iii. Any external lighting and CCTV installation; iv. All external and mechanical plant and ventilation equipment, including noise and

page 5 vibration assessment in accordance with BS4142; v. All green roofs and bat boxes; vi. Secure cycle provision, including changing and shower facilities for occupiers and visitors vii. Electric vehicle charging points viii. Detailed design of pavilion building ix. Details of treatment of internal face of retained facade, finished floor levels and associated external spot heights for the public route, public spaces and all entrances to the building; x. All external facing materials, including those facing the internal courtyard, public routes and spaces (schedule of samples to be provided as mock up on site to be submitted and agreed); xi. Proposals for the commemoration and interpretation of the historic use, occupation and development of the site; xii. Detailed design and external appearance of the top two recessed floors of the proposed office building, including typical bay studies at scale 1:20; xiii. Details of all proposed fenestration including extent of recess, openings and frames at scale 1:20; xiv. Details of the design of the proposed junction between the retained Brushfield Street elevation and new development adjoining either end; and xv. Water impact assessment, to be carried out in conjunction with Thames Water.  Details of the following matters to be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority before the development is occupied: i. details of the lighting control system; ii. Public art proposals and implementation strategy; iii. Estate management strategy; and iv. Delivery, waste management and servicing plan.  Submission and approval of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site and adjoining highway;  Appropriate control of hours of operation with respect to building, engineering, demolition or other associated activities;  Appropriate control of noise levels associated with external machinery/equipment;  Appropriate control of proportion of ground floor in retail and associated use (max. 50%);  Appropriate control of ground floor retail and ancillary space with external elevations along White's Row (not to be occupied by uses falling within Class A3 [restaurants and cafes] or Class A4 [licensed premises];  Appropriate control of opening hours for ground floor retail, cafe and restaurant units;  Approved retail, cafe and restaurant units shall not be amalgamated to form larger self- contained units;  A section 278 agreement with the local highway authority and Transport for London to be undertaken to implement highway works surrounding the site;  The proposed scheme of highway works shall be submitted to, and approved by, the relevant highway authorities;  A scheme for the archaeological investigation of the site shall be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority;  No part of the development shall be occupied until the stone centrepiece on the existing LFWE Brushfield Street elevation has been reinstated in full;  A Contaminated Land Scheme shall be submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority;  No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement has been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority;

page 6  Appropriate control of hours of operation of hammer driven piling or impact breaking; and,  Provision of 26.7 k.W. thermal solar hot water heating system and a 105.4 k.W. electrical solar photovoltaic array to be installed prior to occupation, and retained in perpetuity.

7 The detailed wording of the above conditions is set out in the draft decision notice appended to this report.

Informatives

 Definition of development for the purposes of discharging relevant conditions;  The permission is subject to a section 106 legal agreement;  Building Regulation approval will be required; and,  Engagement with Thames Water will be necessary.

8 The Mayor agrees that the Assistant Director of Planning and the Director of Development and Environment be delegated the authority to add, delete, or vary informatives as required.

9 Conservation area consent – PA/11/02221

Conditions

 Demolition must begin before the expiration of three years;  Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans;  Submission and approval of a demolition management plan;  Submission and approval of a programme of historic building recording and analysis;  Submission and approval of a scheme for the salvage and sustainable re-use of materials or elements of buildings that are of historic or architectural value;  Where demolition would take place during the Black Redstart nesting season, a Black Redstart survey should be submitted. Where Black Redstarts are found, demolition must not start until the young have left the nest;  Submission and approval of a method statement for the protection, retention and structural support of the Brushfield Street facade of the London Fruit and Wool Exchange; and,  Provision of a construction contract, or other suitable means to demonstrate that demolition will only occur immediately prior to construction of the new building, and that construction will occur without undue interruption.

10 That the Mayor notes that approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission and conservation area consent will be submitted to and determined by Tower Hamlets Council.

11 That the Mayor notes that Tower Hamlets Council will be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the respective permissions.

12 That the Mayor confirms that his reasons for granting planning permission and conservation area consent are as set out in this report in the reasons for approval section, as required by Article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

page 7 Site description

13 The application site is located on the south side of Brushfield Street in Spitalfields, approximately 150 metres east of the borough boundary with the City of London. The site is 0.84 hectares in size, and is prominently located opposite Spitalfields Market (to the north) and diagonally opposite Christ Church Spitalfields (to the east). The proposed development plot is bounded to the north by Brushfield Street, to the east by Commercial Street, to the south by White’s Row, and to the west by Crispin Street. Ground levels vary across the site from north to south, with White’s Row lying approximately 1.4 metres lower than Brushfield Street.

14 The proposed development plot (presented in Figure 1 below) is occupied by four buildings: the London Fruit and Wool Exchange (LFWE); 99-101 Commercial Street, Barclays Bank branch (the bank); 54 Brushfield Street, The Gun public house (The Gun); and, White’s Row multi-storey car park (multi-storey car park). The latter was constructed between 1969 and 1971, and the former buildings date to the late 1920s and early 1930s.

15 A private service road (Duval Street) runs east/west through the proposed development plot at the rear of the LFWE, separating this building from the multi-storey car park. It is understood the service road is used for parking and servicing for tenants of the LFWE. Vehicular access to the multi- storey car park is via White’s Row.

LFWE the bank The Gun

multi-storey car park

Figure 1: Annotated extract from existing site plan, Bennetts Associates Architects, drawing number 0923_X10_SP00.

16 The LFWE currently provides four storeys (20,996 sq.m.) of managed office space, provided by the City of London Corporation. This space is occupied by a mix of 61 small businesses, a recently closed ancillary private gym with squash courts, and a temporary private medical facility.

17 The surrounding area contains a broad mix of uses including retail, office, eating and drinking establishments, a place of worship and residential dwellings. Many of the dwellings in closest proximity to the site are located above the ground floor of commercial properties. In terms of the surrounding built form, the context is just as varied, as is characteristic of the City Fringe. Spitalfields

page 8 Market and recent development to the west at 1 Bishops Square exhibit large building footprints, and in the case of the latter, feature contemporary materials and architecture of a scale and design akin to that of City office development. Areas to the south and east of the site are generally characterised by smaller-scale buildings of three to four-storeys, and a fine urban grain created by smaller building plots and narrow streets which were first laid out during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

18 The site falls within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and is also adjacent to the boundary of the Artillery Passage Conservation Area (which lies to the south west) and the Wentworth Street Conservation Area (which lies to the south east). The Spitalfields area contains a high concentration of Listed and Locally Listed Buildings, with the nearest to the site comprising Christ Church Spitalfields (Grade I), 52 Brushfield Street (Grade II), 5 White’s Row (Grade II), and Spitalfields Market (Grade II). None of the buildings within the site are Listed or Locally Listed.

19 In strategic terms, the site is located within the Central Activities Zone and the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

20 The site is well served by public transport. Liverpool Street station (London Underground, bus and national rail services) lies 400 metres to the west of the site, and London Overground services can be accessed from Shoreditch High Street station, which is 400 metres to the north. The London bus network is highly accessible (25 routes available within 400 metres of the site) with services operating along both Commercial Street and Bishopsgate. The site has a public transport accessibility level of six, on a scale of one to six, where six is excellent. This will be further enhanced by Crossrail, with a new station at Liverpool Street opening in 2018.

Details of the proposal

21 The following description of the development incorporates alterations to the application made following the submission of revised plans on 23 January 2012, and a number of minor further changes proposed by the applicant following Tower Hamlets Council’s Strategic Development Committee meeting of 6 March 2012.

Developmental approach

22 Planning permission and conservation area consent are sought for the demolition of the multi- storey car park, the LFWE (behind the retained Brushfield Street facade), The Gun and the bank. The site is then proposed to undergo comprehensive redevelopment to provide a mix of uses including flexible office space, small and medium sized business space, retail, services, restaurants, cafe and licensed premises. Table 2, below, details the proposed provision of uses in terms of floorspace.

Quantum of provision Proposed use (sq.m. gross external area) Office (Use Class B1) 35,417* Small and medium sized business space (Use Class B1) 2,000* Retail (Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and A4) 3,077 Parking/servicing 1,323 Total 41,817 Table 2: Proposed provision of uses by floorspace. *Note that the balance between office and small and medium sized business (SME) space varies slightly from that expressed within the Design and Access Statement Area Schedule to reflect a proposed 560 sq.m. increase in SME space proposed following the Council’s 6 March 2012 committee meeting.

page 9 Proposed built form

23 The proposed built development comprises a part three, part four and part six-storey building, with basement, to accommodate the proposed office and small to medium sized business space, along with ground floor public house, retail, cafe and restaurant space. A small standalone single-storey pavilion building (originally proposed for retail use, but also potentially suitable to provide space for an on-site employment skills centre), is also proposed adjacent to the junction of White’s Row and Crispin Street.

24 The main building has been designed to allow flexible occupation of the large office floors by more than one tenant, with two office receptions situated behind the main Brushfield Street entrance, accessible via a new north-south public route, or an arcade along Brushfield Street (discussed in paragraphs 25 and 26 respectively, below).

25 The main building would create a single block, removing the existing private east/west service road (Duval Street), and instead, providing north-south permeability through the site via a partially covered walkway. The ground to ceiling height of the covered sections of the walkway would be 4.3 metres, with the mid-section of the route including a central courtyard that would be open to the air. In total, 46% of the walkway would be covered (13 metres from the Brushfield Street entrance and 16 metres from the White’s Row entrance), either side of the central courtyard.

26 The Brushfield Street facade of the LFWE (77 metres in length) between the bank and The Gun would be retained. The facade would, nevertheless, be modified to provide flush access from street level by removing existing ground floor windows and stall risers, and dropping the openings to street level, to form a new ground floor public arcade, 2.5 metres in width (between the retained facade and the secondary recessed frontage of the building). As well as connecting to the main building behind, the facade would be integrated with the new development at the corner plots (which would replace the bank and The Gun). The proposals also include the removal of an existing roof extension (built during the 1960s) and the re-instatement of a stone centrepiece on the Brushfield Street facade, to its original prominence.

27 The elements at the Commercial Street/Brushfield Street corner, and the Brushfield Street/Crispin Street corner, (proposed to replace the bank and The Gun) are set forward by approximately two metres relative to the principal west and east elevations. This is intended to express these elements as distinct from the main building volume. These elements would also be chamfered by 45 degrees at the above street corners.

28 The elevations of the new building exhibit recessed windows within a proud external framework. The ratio of solid and void elements varies between elevations, but maintains a strong vertical emphasis. The primary facing materials for the proposed new buildings would comprise red brick, with re-constituted white stone emphasises.

29 The main volume of the new building would have four floors (above a basement), with a further two floors (set back nine metres from the principal elevations), located above the main four- storey element. The two set back storeys would be expressed as an architecturally distinct element, extensively glazed with other materials including perforated metal (as solar shading) and re- constituted stone detailing. A sedum roof is proposed on the roof top, combined with space for accommodating photovoltaic/solar panels. Terraces with formal planting are also proposed on the third-floor (along a portion of the southern elevation) and on the fourth-floor (around the parameter of the set back two-storey component).

30 The third-floor terrace feature, discussed above, allows the building form to step down in scale to the south (at White’s Row). This, combined with a step forward along Commercial Street, results in

page 10 the lower south-eastern quarter of the building being perceived as a visually distinct element, set against the volume of the rest of the building.

Proposed public realm

31 The proposal includes the formation of two new open spaces. The first, a new 1,060 sq.m. public open space, would be provided at the corner of Crispin Street and White’s Row (created by drawing the building line back in this location). The second, as discussed in paragraph 25 above, would be a new central open air courtyard of 410 sq.m., located at the heart of the site and accessed via the proposed north-south public route. Taking into account the public north-south route, and the proposed spaces above, the proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 1,800 sq.m. of new publicly accessible space.

32 Supported by the activities within the proposed pavilion building on White’s Row, the new open spaces would be framed by ground floor retail, cafe and restaurant uses, as well as the proposed office reception areas along the north-south access route. A mixture of hard and soft landscaping is proposed, in conjunction with public art and lighting within the open spaces. York Stone paving would be used along the central route and courtyard, providing a continuous surface treatment, and responding to the treatment of adjoining streets.

33 A package of public realm improvements for the adjoining streets is also proposed. With respect to Brushfield Street, the approach has been developed in response to the Council’s proposed Brushfield Street Improvement Scheme. This includes revised on-street parking arrangements, and a more generous footway in front of the development. Landscaping proposals include an option to remove existing trees, so that they may be replaced at a revised alignment, to frame the proposed development, and improve the views towards Christ Church.

34 Improvements to paving and additional tree planting (where possible) are also proposed for Crispin Street, White’s Row and Commercial Street. York Stone paving is proposed to maintain continuity with local improvements already carried out along the western section of Brushfield Street.

35 As discussed in paragraph 13, ground levels at the site vary by 1.4 metres from north to south. The proposed public realm has been designed to respond to this through the provision of two southward tapering ramps: one along the north-south route leading from the central courtyard to the southern public space; and, one from the southern public space to White’s Row.

Parking and servicing

36 Eight car parking spaces (including two disabled spaces) are proposed at the basement level of the building, along with 180 employee cycle stands and 16 motorcycle spaces. Access to the basement would be via a ramp from Crispin Street.

37 All servicing would take place within a combined internal service yard at ground floor, accessed midway along Crispin Street. This would contain service bays capable of accommodating three delivery and/or refuse vehicles with sufficient space for loading and unloading. A central recycling and waste storage facility is proposed at basement level, and would be linked by lift to the service yard at the ground floor. Relevant case history

Previous history

38 On 6 July 2004 Tower Hamlets Council registered planning application PA/04/00916 for demolition of existing buildings and structures, and redevelopment to provide a basement and lower

page 11 ground floor plus six-storey mixed-use development comprising 27,509 sq.m. Class B1 offices and 4,130 sq.m. Class A1 and A3 uses, together with ancillary storage use and parking facilities, and a new vehicle access from Whites Row.

39 The application was referred to the Mayor of London on 13 July 2004, and on 9 February 2005 the former Mayor considered GLA planning report reference PDU/1018/01, and issued his initial representations on the application. The representations within the report stated that whilst the proposed redevelopment of the site would provide regeneration benefits to the City Fringe in terms of job creation, strategic concerns needed to be resolved with respect to heritage, design, inclusive access and the proposed energy strategy. In addition to the representations contained within the report, the Mayor provided additional comments within the covering letter to Tower Hamlets Council (GLA planning letter reference PDU/1018/WS/26). The additional comments stated that: “the mixed use aspect of the redevelopment should be increased. If and when the inclusion of residential accommodation have been demonstrated to be in conflict with other policies of the London Plan, an off-site provision of housing is required as part of a planning agreement.”

40 The application was undetermined by Tower Hamlets Council, and on 13 April 2011 the application was formally withdrawn and returned to the applicant.

41 On 8 July 2010 Tower Hamlets Council registered planning application PA/10/01288 for temporary change of use of rooms 41/43 of the London Fruit Exchange from B1 (office) use to chiropractic clinic (Use Class D1) for the duration of the applicant’s leasehold use and occupation.

42 This application was not referable to the Mayor of London under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, and on 26 August 2010 Tower Hamlets Council granted permission.

Current proposal

43 On 1 September 2011 Tower Hamlets Council registered planning application PA/11/02220 for demolition of White’s Row multi-storey car park, 99-101 Commercial Street (Barclays Bank branch), 54 Brushfield Street (The Gun public house), partial demolition of the London Fruit & Wool Exchange behind the retained Brushfield Street facade, and the erection of a six-storey building with a basement, for business, employment and retail use (Use Classes B1/A1/A2/A3 & A4) with landscaping and associated works, together with a new pavilion building for retail accommodation (Use Class A1).

44 The application was referred to the Mayor of London on 4 October 2011, and on 2 November 2011 the Mayor considered GLA planning report reference PDU/1018a/01, and issued his initial representations on the scheme. The representations within the report stated that the principle of office rejuvenation at this site is supported, but whilst the application was generally acceptable in strategic planning terms the application did not comply with the London Plan for reasons with respect to mix of uses, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport. In addition to the representations contained within the report, the Mayor provided additional comments within the covering letter to Tower Hamlets Council (GLA planning letter reference PDU/1018a/GC/02). The additional comments stated that: “the Mayor expressed concern at the loss of the existing The Gun public house building, and the treatment of the new building facades at the corners of Crispin Street and Brusfield Street, and Brushfield Street and Commercial Street. He urges the applicant to seek to retain the public house building if possible, and strongly encourages the architect to present an architectural response for the new facades and fenestration which would provide a degree of variation and detailing comparable to that of the existing corner buildings and London Fruit and Wool Exchange.”

page 12 45 On 23 January 2012 Tower Hamlets Council received amendments to planning application PA/11/02220. The amendments comprise: design alterations and an associated Design and Access Statement Addendum (January 2012), revised plans, elevations, sections and bay studies; technical revisions to the Environmental Statement (detailed within Environmental Statement volume 5: Addendum (23 January 2012); a replacement Environmental Statement volume 3: Townscape and visual amenity assessment (January 2012); and, a replacement Environmental Statement volume 1: Non-technical summary (21 January 2012). A summary PPS 5 case was also submitted, along with responses to comments made by Tower Hamlets Council with respect to sustainability and transport. In summary, the submitted design revisions comprise:

 Smaller, more vertical windows that are often grouped in pairs;  Lowered parapet heights made from reconstituted stone, echoing the existing Barclays Bank and The Gun public house buildings;  Additional stone elements to add further expression and detail;  A 1.5 metre step in the facade to acknowledge the existing corner buildings’ footprint;  Removal of the building's south-western chamfered corner; and,  Alteration in the proposed brick colour to better complement the retained LFWE facade.

46 The applicant states on page six of its Environmental Statement volume 5: Addendum that these amendments pull a portion of the Crispin Street elevation in by approximately 0.7 metres whilst pushing a comparable length of the Commercial Street elevation out the same dimension.

47 The Mayor of London was consulted on the amendments on 6 February 2012. On 9 February 2012 GLA officers provided an update to Tower Hamlets Council in response to the design amendments stating that whilst it was disappointing that the revised proposal would not retain The Gun, the submitted design revisions were broadly welcomed in response to the urban design issues raised at consultation stage, and that officers would now be content to positively recommend the scheme to the Mayor in design terms.

48 On 6 March 2012 Tower Hamlets Council considered the scheme at a Strategic Development Committee meeting and resolved that it did not accept its officers’ recommendation to grant permission, and was minded to refuse planning permission for the application. The application was subsequently deferred so that a decision could be made at a later date. On 31 May 2012 Tower Hamlets Council again considered the scheme at a Strategic Development Committee meeting. The committee motioned that it did not accept its officers’ recommendation to grant permission, and it resolved to refuse permission for application PA/11/02220 the following reasons:

i. “The demolition of The Gun public house and the London Fruit and Wool Exchange would cause loss of an existing heritage assets that make a positive contribution to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area. Their replacement with a building of inappropriate of scale, bulk and massing, within an inappropriate design approach that eliminates the divisions between separate buildings within the urban block would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and would harm the setting of neighbouring listed buildings contrary to policy 7.8 of the London Plan, policy SP10 of the Core Strategy 2010, saved policy DEV28 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998, policies DM24 and 27 of the Managing Development DPD (submission version 2012) and policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007.”

ii. “The proposed development would provide a significant increase in office floor space within a large development scheme falling within the London Central Activities Zone (CAZ), without directly providing housing on site as part of a mixed use development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policies 2.11 and 4.3 of the London Plan 2011 which seeks to ensure that new office development within the CAZ delivers a mix of uses

page 13 including housing in the interests of ensuring economic growth is complimented and supported by appropriate levels of housing.”

49 It was also resolved to refuse permission for the conservation area consent application PA/11/02221 for the following reason:

i. “The demolition of the London Fruit and Wool Exchange (except Brushfield Street façade), Gun Public House and bank at 99-101 Commercial Street, in the absence of an acceptable redevelopment proposal would be premature and would harm the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, would harm the setting of adjacent and nearby listed buildings and would be contrary to policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2011), Policy SP 10 of the Core Strategy 2012, saved policy DEV28 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007.”

50 On 8 June 2012 Tower Hamlets Council advised the Mayor of its decision to refuse the application, and the associated conservation area consent. On 20 June 2012, the Mayor considered GLA planning report reference PDU/1018a/02. Having regard to the details of the application; the matters set out in the Council’s committee reports, the draft decision notice; and, the fact that the policy tests set out within Article 7 of the Order had been met in that the development has a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan, has a significant effect on more than one borough, and there were sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case, the Mayor issued a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he would act as the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining the application, and the conservation area consent.

51 This report and the Mayor of London’s decision on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

Relevant legislation, policies and guidance

52 The application includes an Environmental Statement (amended) submitted under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The environmental information submitted for the purposes of these Regulations have been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

53 In determining this application, the Mayor must have consideration to planning policy at the national, regional and local levels. The relevant material planning considerations relate to: land use principle (employment, mix of uses, and retail); design (including urban design, views [strategic and local], public realm and open space, heritage, and demolition within a Conservation Area); inclusive design; sustainable development; environmental issues (including residential amenity); transport; and, mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations. The relevant planning policies and guidance at the national, regional and local levels are as follows:

National planning policy and guidance

54 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the Government’s overarching planning policy, key to which, is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF defines three dimensions to sustainable development: an economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and, an environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. The relevant components of the NPPF are:

 1. Building a strong, competitive economy;  4. Promoting sustainable transport;

page 14  7. Requiring good design;  8. Promoting healthy communities;  10. Meeting the challenge of climate change;  11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; and,  12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Regional planning policy and guidance

55 The London Plan (2011) is the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. The relevant policies within the London Plan are:

 Policy 2.1 - London in its global, European and United Kingdom context;  Policy 2.10 - Central Activities Zone – strategic priorities;  Policy 2.11 - Central Activities Zone – strategic functions;  Policy 2.12 - Central Activities Zone – predominantly local activities;  Policy 2.13 - Opportunity areas and intensification areas;  Policy 4.1 - Developing London’s economy;  Policy 4.2 - Offices;  Policy 4.3 - Mixed use development and offices;  Policy 4.7 - Retail and town centre development;  Policy 4.11 - Encouraging a connected economy;  Policy 4.12 - Improving opportunities for all;  Policy 5.1 - Climate change mitigation;  Policy 5.2 - Minimising carbon dioxide emissions;  Policy 5.3 - Sustainable design and construction;  Policy 5.5 - Decentralised energy networks;  Policy 5.6 - Decentralised energy in development proposals;  Policy 5.7 - Renewable energy;  Policy 5.10 - Urban greening;  Policy 5.11 - Green roofs and development site environs;  Policy 5.13 - Sustainable drainage;  Policy 6.1 - Strategic approach;  Policy 6.3 - Assessing the effects of development on transport capacity;  Policy 6.5 - Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure;  Policy 6.10 - Walking;  Policy 6.12 - Road network capacity;  Policy 6.13 - Parking;  Policy 6.14 - Freight;  Policy 7.1 - Building London’s neighbourhoods and communities;  Policy 7.2 - An inclusive environment;  Policy 7.3 - Designing out crime;  Policy 7.4 - Local character;  Policy 7.5 - Public realm;  Policy 7.6 - Architecture;  Policy 7.7 - Location and design of tall and large buildings;  Policy 7.8 - Heritage assets and archaeology;  Policy 7.9 - Heritage-led regeneration;  Policy 7.11 - London View Management Framework  Policy 7.12 - Implementing the London View Management Framework;

page 15  Policy 8.2 - Planning obligations; and,  Policy 8.3 - Community infrastructure levy.

56 Also relevant are:

 London Plan revised early minor alterations, published for public consultation, June 2012;  Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule, effective from 1 April 2012;  London View Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance, March 2012;  Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail Supplementary Planning Guidance, July 2010; and,  Consultation draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework, February 2008.

Local planning policy

57 The adopted Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) forms part of the Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework (LDF) and provides the overarching local policy approach for the Borough. The relevant policies within the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy are:

 SO1–SO25 - Strategic objectives for Tower Hamlets;  SP01 - Refocusing on our town centres;  SP03 - Creating healthy and liveable neighbourhoods;  SP04 - Creating a green and blue grid;  SP05 - Dealing with waste;  SP06 - Delivering successful employment hubs;  SP07 - Improving education and skills;  SP08 - Making connected places;  SP09 - Creating attractive and safe streets and spaces;  SP10 - Creating distinct and durable places;  SP11 - Working towards a zero-carbon borough;  SP12 - Delivering place making – priorities and principles; and,  SP13 - Planning obligations.

58 Also relevant is Annex: Delivering place making – Spitalfields.

59 The 1998 Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is gradually being replaced by the Tower Hamlets LDF, however, a number of saved designations and policies are still in effect. The relevant saved UDP designations within the vicinity of the site are:

 Central Area Zone;  Special Policy Area;  Area of archaeological importance potential; and,  Strategic view consultation area.

60 The relevant saved UDP polices are:

 ST15 - Local economy;  ST17 - High quality work environments;  ST26 - Existing residential accommodation;  ST35 - Local shops;  ST43 - Public art;  ST51 - Public utilities;

page 16  DEV1 - Design requirements;  DEV2 - Environmental requirements;  DEV3 - Mixed use developments;  DEV4 - Planning obligations;  DEV8 - Local views;  DEV12 - Provision of landscaping in development;  DEV28 - Demolition in conservation areas;  DEV42 - Scheduled Ancient Monuments;  DEV43 - Protection of archaeological heritage;  DEV44 - Preservation of archaeological remains;  DEV50 - Noise;  DEV51 - Contaminated land;  DEV53 - Conditions on consents;  DEV55 - Development and waste disposal;  DEV56 - Waste recycling;  DEV69 - Efficient use of water;  CAZ 1 - Central Activities Zone;  EMP1 - Promoting economic growth and employment opportunities;  EMP7 - Employing local people;  EMP8 - Enhancing employment opportunities;  EMP10 - Encouraging small business growth;  T16 - Traffic priorities for new development;  T18 - Pedestrians and the road network;  T19 - Priorities for pedestrian initiatives;  T21 - Pedestrians needs in new development; and,  S10 - Requirements for new shop front proposals.

61 Tower Hamlets Council has also adopted a suite of Interim Planning Guidance for the purpose of development control, which, until more of the LDF is adopted, is to be considered alongside the adopted Core Strategy and saved UDP policies, when assessing planning applications. Relevant interim guidance in this case comprises: Interim Proposals Map (September 2006); Interim Core Strategy and Development Control Plan (October 2007); and, Interim City Fringe Area Action Plan (October 2007).

62 Within this guidance, relevant spatially specific policies within the vicinity of the site comprise:

 City Fringe Area Action Plan site CF8 ‘Fruit & Wool Exchange’ (preferred use: Employment (B1), Retail [A1, A2, A3 & A4], and public open space);  Central Activities Zone;  Conservation Areas;  Archaeological Priority Area; and,  Strategic View Consultation Area.

63 Relevant development management guidance comprises:

 DEV1 - Amenity;  DEV2 - Character & design;  DEV3 - Accessibility & inclusive design;  DEV4 - Safety & security;  DEV5 - Sustainable design;

page 17  DEV6 - Energy efficiency & renewable energy;  DEV7 - Water quality and conservation;  DEV8 - Sustainable drainage;  DEV9 - Sustainable construction materials;  DEV10 - Disturbance from noise pollution;  DEV11 - Air pollution and air quality;  DEV12 - Management of demolition and construction;  DEV13 - Landscaping and tree preservation;  DEV14 - Public art;  DEV15 - Waste and recyclables storage;  DEV16 - Walking and cycling routes and facilities;  DEV17 - Transport assessments;  DEV18 - Travel plans;  DEV19 - Parking for motor vehicles;  DEV20 - Capacity of utility infrastructure;  DEV22 - Contaminated land;  DEV24 - Accessible amenities and services;  DEV25 - Social impact assessment;  DEV27 - Tall buildings assessment;  EE2 - Redevelopment / change of use of employment sites;  RT5 - Evening and night-time economy;  CFR10 - Residential uses in the Aldgate and Spitalfields Market sub-area;  CP31 - Biodiversity;  CP38 - Energy efficiency and production of renewable energy;  CON2 - Conservation;  CON3 - Protection;  CON4 - Archaeology;  CON5 - Protection; and,  U1 - Utilities.

64 Other relevant local Supplementary Planning Documents and guidance comprise:

 Tower Hamlets Planning Obligations SPD (January 2012);  Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area – Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines (November 2009); and,  Artillery Passage Conservation Area – Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines (March 2007).

65 The emerging Tower Hamlets Managing Development DPD and LDF Proposals Map (proposed submission version 2012) are also a consideration. These documents will undergo public examination, starting on 18 September 2012, and once adopted, will set out detailed policies and spatial designations for development management within the borough. The Mayor’s view on the Managing Development DPD, expressed on 7 March 2012 and 30 August 2012, is that the document is not in general conformity with the London Plan with respect to affordable housing policy. This matter will be considered by the Planning Inspector at the public examination.

 DM1 - Development within the town centre hierarchy;  DM2 - Protecting local shops;  DM11 - Living buildings and biodiversity;  DM13 - Sustainable drainage;

page 18  DM15 - Local job creation and investment;  DM16 - Office locations;  DM20 - Supporting a sustainable transport network;  DM22 - Parking;  DM23 - Streets and the public realm;  DM24 - Place sensitive design;  DM25 - Amenity;  DM26 - Building heights;  DM27 - Heritage and the historic environment; and,  DM29 - Achieving a zero carbon borough and addressing climate change.

66 Tower Hamlets Council has also published a Community Plan (2011) which is a strategy intended to reduce inequality and poverty, particularly among the most disadvantaged in the Borough. The following Community Plan objectives are relevant to the application:

 A Great Place to Live;  A Prosperous Community;  A Safe and Supportive Community; and,  A Healthy Community. Response to consultation

67 As part of the planning process Tower Hamlets Council has carried out consultation in respect to the application and conservation area consent, consulting all statutory bodies, and the local public. A second round of consultation was undertaken following the receipt of revised plans on 23 January 2012. All consultations responses, and other representations, are summarised below. All responses and representations received to date, both by Tower Hamlets Council, and the Mayor of London, have been made available to the Mayor.

Statutory consultees

Greater London Authority (including Transport for London) – Mayor’s initial representations (stage 1)

68 Whilst the principle of office rejuvenation within the Central Activities Zone is supported, and the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not comply with the London Plan for the following reasons:

 Mix of uses: The applicant should investigate the potential for off-site housing provision nearby. If this cannot be achieved the applicant should propose a financial contribution for off-site housing provision in accordance with the requirements of London Plan Policy 4.3.

 Urban design: The applicant should provide information as to whether the reuse of The Gun public house building for residential or employment space would be feasible in accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 7.9. Details of the pavilion building’s street-facing material are sought in respect of London Plan Policy 7.8, and an activity strategy should be developed for the arcade and north-south route in order to address London Plan Policy 7.3.

 Inclusive access: The applicant should ensure a genuinely intuitive and inclusive wheelchair route is provided between Brushfield Street and the proposed north-south route in accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 7.2.

page 19  Sustainable development: Clarifications are required respect to: renewable energy; overall carbon dioxide savings; urban greening; and, sustainable drainage in accordance with London Plan policies 5.2, 5.7, 5.11 and 5.13.

 Transport: Strategic transport issues with respect to: parking; trip generation and highway; travel planning; walking; and, Crossrail should be addressed in accordance with London Plan policies 6.1, 6.5, 6.10, 6.13 and 6.14.

69 If the above issues are addressed, it could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan.

70 In addition to the representations contained within the report, the Mayor provided additional comments in the covering letter (refer to paragraph 44), in summary, these seek the retention of The Gun, and encourage a revised architectural response for the new facades and fenestration, that would provide a greater degree of variation and detailing.

Greater London Authority – Informal officer level comments on amended plans

71 Whilst it is disappointing that the revised plans would not retain The Gun, the submitted design revisions are broadly welcomed in response to the urban design issues raised at consultation stage, and officers would now be content to positively recommend the scheme to the Mayor in design terms.

72 It is also noted that the applicant has committed to providing the required Crossrail contribution, and that this is included within the section 106 legal agreement heads of terms. It is further acknowledged that the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, to deliver additional affordable units on a nearby Council owned site. This is supported in response to issues raised previously with respect to mixed use development.

Greater London Authority (including Transport for London) – Mayor’s decision (stage 2)

73 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s draft decision notice, the development has a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan, has a significant affect on more than one borough, and there are sound planning reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case and issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order.

English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Areas) – Initial comments

74 An objection is raised to the demolition of The Gun and the bank and expressed concern with regard to the extent of demolition of the LFWE. Concern was also raised at the proposed loss of the private service road (Duval Street) which was formerly known as Dorset Street, and which English Heritage considers to be of historic significance. A summary of the other detailed comments provided within the consultation response is presented below.

75 The heritage context to the site, and the characteristics of the buildings that occupy it, is expressed. An important part of the significance of LFWE is its relationship to Spitalfields Market, and this has played an important role in shaping the character of this part of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area.

76 The Gun, the bank, and LFWE are important conservation area buildings, make positive contributions to the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area. These buildings were included within the Conservation Area because they are important to the setting of the front elevation of Christ Church Spitalfields. The proposed demolition of LFWE, The Gun

page 20 and the bank would cause substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (the Conservation Area) and complete loss of significance to undesignated assets (the LFWE, The Gun and the bank buildings within the conservation area). In this respect, Policy HE 9.2 of PPS5 would apply.

77 Concern is raised about the scale of the proposed office development at the site in the context of broader concerns about the encroachment of city-scale offices into Spitalfields and the City Fringe, and the impact on the character of the Conservation Area.

78 Attention is drawn to harm caused by the proposal within a view from within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, along Commercial Street. The beneficial impact on views from the Artillery Lane Conservation Area is noted, but this would not outweigh the considerable harm caused by the proposals to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area.

79 The proposed north-south route is noted as beneficial to the development, but would not outweigh the loss of Duval Street. The demolition of White’s Row car park is welcomed.

English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Areas) – Response to revised plans

80 Our previous consultation response sets out the significance of LFWE, The Gun and the bank and expresses our overriding concerns, along with an objection to the proposed loss of The Gun and the bank. The amended scheme does not retain either of these buildings, but rather includes revised elevations for those parts of the site. We consider that these amendments would not, in any way, compensate for the loss of the existing structures.

81 The proposed revisions with regard to the Commercial Street elevations, and slight amendments with regard to the building line fronting that street, do not address our fundamental concerns with regard to that aspect of the proposal in local views.

82 Our views with regard to all other aspects of the scheme remain as per our initial comments. The points raised in both our letters should be clearly set out and fully addressed within any committee report.

83 In conclusion, for the reasons set out in this response, and our previous one, we object to both the Conservation Area consent application and planning application, and we urge that both applications are refused.

English Heritage (Archaeology)

84 The site lies within an area of high archaeological potential and is locally designated as an area of archaeological interest. Significant remains from the Roman and medieval periods, including burials, have been found within the immediate vicinity of the site. The development of the Spitalfields area in the 17th and 18th centuries is also of significance in understanding the expansion of the City Fringe areas, and how the activities, occupations and buildings from that period continue to have a strong influence on the present character of the area.

85 The southern area of the site, presently occupied by the multi-storey car park, does not have basement levels, and therefore up to 3 metres of archaeological deposits may be present in this area of the site. The potential for archaeological deposits under the LFWE building is less for later deposits, but still remains for deep cut features and earlier activity. The proposed development includes basement levels across the entirety of the site, which will clearly have a detrimental affect on any archaeological remains present.

page 21 86 In accordance with the recommendations given in PPS 5, Policy HE 12.3, and in the Council’s saved UDP policies DV42 - 45, a record should be made of the heritage assets prior to development, in order to preserve and enhance understanding of the assets.

87 Planning conditions are sought such that:

i. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority.

ii. No development or demolition shall take place other that in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under part (i.).

iii. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under part (i.), and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of the results and archive deposition has been secured.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

88 Pump appliance access to the perimeter appears adequate although detail of water supplies available for the fire service is not included in the supplied documents. Existing pavement hydrants should not be covered or altered without consultation with the Brigade. The proposal should conform to the requirements of Part B of Building Regulations.

Thames Water

89 Thames Water provides advice on waste water, surface water drainage, discharge of groundwater into the public sewer system, foundation works and way-leaves for water mains adjacent to the site.

90 Planning conditions are sought such that:

i. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

ii. No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Adjoining local authorities

City of London Corporation (City Surveyor’s Department)

91 The City Corporation is committed, not only to regeneration initiatives, but also to working with small and medium sized enterprise (SME) occupiers. Consequently, a strategy (developed in

page 22 conjunction with the applicant) to assist those existing occupiers of the LFWE, now and in the longer term, has been put in place. The strategy includes the offer of alternative refurbished space within Tower Hamlets; financial assistance to help cover costs of relocation; free relocation advice; the option for leasing of additional space; provision of 2,000 sq.m. of on-site SME space within the proposed redevelopment, with existing occupiers offered the first right of refusal; and, existing occupiers offered new SME space at 50% of market rent, with transitional relief also offered (one year rent free and one year half rent). The City of London also promotes the use of corporate responsibility programmes to include those proposed within the applicant’s employment and training strategy, to be secured by section 106 legal agreement.

92 The City Corporation also provided a copy of its notification letter to occupiers of the LFWE stating that the building is reaching the end of its working life, and advising that the building would be closed on 3 December 2012.

Hackney Council (Planning and Regulatory Services)

93 Hackney Council acknowledged the consultation but did not provide specific comments.

Other organisations

Twentieth Century Society

94 The Society’s advisory committee welcomes the retention of the facade of the LFWE, however, concern is raised that the facades of The Gun and the bank are due to be demolished. As a group all three of these buildings provide considerable townscape merit, and provide a successful and appropriately scaled setting for Christ Church and Spitalfields Market, in keeping with the Conservation Area.

95 Concern is also raised with respect to the design of the proposed six-storey building, which would detract from the setting of Christ Church, and is an inappropriate response to the character of the Conservation Area.

96 At this stage we would like to register our objection to the loss of the corner buildings, and to encourage the applicant to consider a revised scheme that retains the facades of Brushfield Street in its entirety.

Twentieth Century Society – Response to revised plans

97 Despite the amended proposals, which incorporate a greater level of detailing with regards to the replacement corner buildings, and a wider palette of appropriate materials, the Society maintains its objections to the loss of The Gun and the bank buildings. These buildings, combined with the LFWE, act as a group and provide considerable townscape merit. The ensemble is a successful and appropriately scaled setting for Christ Church Spitalfields, the adjacent listed market building, and other listed buildings, and is in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. The whole Brushfield Street facade and ensemble of buildings should, therefore, be retained.

98 It should be noted that the Twentieth Century Society has since informed the Mayor that it wishes to withdraw its objection to the scheme, refer to paragraph 126 below.

Community representations made to Tower Hamlets Council

99 Tower Hamlets Council posted site notices for both applications displayed on 6 October 2011, and 30 January 2012 (for the amended plans). The proposals were advertised in the press on 3 and 10

page 23 October 2011 and 30 January 2012 (for the amended plans). A total of 774 local addresses were notified in writing.

100 In response to Tower Hamlets Council’s consultation process, the Council received 110 objection letters from local residents, businesses, employees, occupiers and users of the London Fruit and Wool Exchange, and The Spitalfields Trust and Spitalfields Community Group. Three petitions of objection were also received, with 843 signatures in total.

101 The petitions comprise the following:

 Petition of 206 signatures objecting to the demolition and redevelopment of the LFWE, and in particular, the failure to preserve gym and squash facilities at the LFWE;  Petition of 48 signatures endorsing an objection letter from journalist, and local resident, John Nicolson (the letter objected to the following aspects of the proposal: architectural quality and approach; loss of Dorset Street; absence of housing on site; lack of proposed small retail spaces; and, proposed north-south route would not be user-friendly, and could be subject to closure by the site owner.); and,  Petition of 589 signatures and 113 individual comments provided by the Spitalfields Community Group. Specifics of the detailed objections submitted by the Spitalfields Community Group are summarised below.

102 The Council also received 124 letters of support for the application from local residents, businesses, the landlord of The Gun and the Rector of Christ Church Spitalfields.

103 The responses from key local parties are summarised below, and all of the material considerations raised by the community representations are set out in paragraph 134.

The Spitalfields Trust

104 We feel this is the best proposal yet for the site, however, it falls short of being a successful scheme due to the following issues:

 We welcome the retention of the LFWE Brushfield Street elevation, but feel the Commercial Street and Crispin Street elevations of the LFWE should also be retained. The bank building should be retained too, and converted as necessary. These buildings form a fitting setting to Christ Church Spitalfields, something that a new elevation would struggle to achieve.  We welcome the proposed covered arcade along Brushfield Street, but are very much against the removal of the existing service road (Dorset Street). A further arcade (or similar) should be provided in this position to improve permeability.  The proposal for such a large office building is a mistake for an area with a number of empty offices already. A residential use for much of the site would help to maintain vibrancy and respond to the City’s accommodation needs.

The Spitalfields Trust – further comments following meeting with the applicant

105 We accept the project is constrained by the Council’s local development strategy, however, we maintain that this building would be ideal for residential use, and hope that through negotiation some level of on-site residential use could be achieved.

106 We cannot understand why Dorset Street is not proposed to be retained. A large single block, as currently proposed, is in our view, completely inappropriate.

107 We are impressed with how the elevations to the pub corner of the building are now proposed to be enlivened with detail. We feel very strongly that this is what the new corner at the bank also

page 24 needs. An appropriate treatment such as an arch, or even a blind arch, corresponding with where Dorset Street met Commercial Street would also be beneficial to the Commercial Street elevation.

The Spitalfields Trust and Spitalfields Community Group – combined response to revised plans

108 The Spitalfields Trust and Spitalfields Community Group object most strongly to the proposed development. The objection relates to the architecture and proposed uses, and it is questioned whether the redevelopment of the site would benefit local employment. The architecture should be more responsive to the Conservation Area, the service road (Dorset Street) should be retained along with more of the 1920s buildings on the site, and the mix of uses should be richer and include a variety of housing.

109 The Spitalfields Trust and Spitalfields Community Group held a meeting with the applicant to discuss ways in which the scheme could be amended to accommodate these objections. However, the applicant has not responded to the key concerns. The groups have therefore felt obliged to produce an alternative scheme which shows how the site could be developed to enhance the historic and social character of the area and create on-site housing and local employment. The alternative scheme also seeks to improve permeability, provide public spaces and retain Dorset Street.

110 The objection letter from The Spitalfields Trust and Spitalfields Community Group is supported by concept diagrams and text setting out design rationale, analysis, and indicative floor plans and artists impressions of key views in and around the alternative scheme. A draft development analysis of commercial floor space with the application, compared to the alternative scheme is also provided. The draft analysis attempts to show that the alternative scheme is more viable in terms of financial returns than the application scheme.

The Spitalfields Society

111 We have considered the scheme and revised proposals and would like to emphasise that we support the scheme. This is by far the best scheme yet proposed for the site, and, in particular: the proposals to increase small and medium sized business space at below market rent; the provision of a free employment and training centre with £500,000 funding; and, a social compact committing employers and the developer to local employment and training initiatives are far better than we have seen with others schemes. The recent possible addition of provision for an enforcement officer and public toilet facilities in the area are also welcome.

The Gun public house (Landlord)

112 The applicant has consulted us from the outset and we fully support the re-development. The creation of a new public house in the same location is proposed, and the development will bring a significant number of jobs to the area and improve trading conditions.

Christ Church Spitalfields (Rector)

113 I am supportive of the plans to redevelop the LFWE site which overlooks out church and gardens. I have requested that our crypt and gardens be considered for improvement as potential planning obligations. Consideration should also be given to compensation in view of the considerable impact on the church by way of dust, noise and dirt during construction. Replacement trees long Brushfield Street should improve the vista of Christ Church Spitalfields.

page 25 Representations made to the Mayor of London

114 At the time of writing this report the Mayor has received 64 objections from local residents, local groups, employees and business owners, including website links to online campaigns, press and community articles. The Mayor has also received 68 representations of support from local residents, local groups, employees, business owners, and the Rector of Christ Church Spitalfields.

115 Summaries of the representations from key local parties are provided below, and all of the material considerations raised by the community representations are set out in paragraph 134.

Spitalfields Community Group and Spitalfields Trust

116 We write to you following Tower Hamlets’ second and final rejection of this proposal which would eradicate Dorset Street and demolish The London Fruit and Wool Exchange, Barclays Bank Spitalfields, and The Gun. The rejection by Tower Hamlets councillors marked a cross-party agreement.

117 We request that you allow the Tower Hamlets decision to stand because: whilst residents widely understand the plans, after a year of engagement by the developer they still do not support them; the local response has been widespread and democratic; the scheme would result in the demolition of the LFWE, a building of significant architectural and social history; the replacement building is of poor architectural quality; no housing is proposed on site, meaning the site would be inactive at night time; and, the level of job creation is not guaranteed.

118 A copy of an online petition (comprising 589 signatures and 113 comments) previously provided by Spitalfields Community Group to Tower Hamlets Council, was forwarded to the Mayor. The Spitalfields Community Group and Spitalfields Trust also provided the details of the alternative proposal for the site discussed in paragraphs 109 and 110.

The Spitalfields Trust (Chairman)

119 The development should be of mixed commercial and residential uses; the existing street pattern should be maintained; the facade facing Christ Church Spitalfields is not of good quality (a new facade should represent an improvement over the existing one); and, The Spitalfields Trust hopes the applicant will return with a scheme in harmony with the fabric of Spitalfields, and that the Mayor would support such an approach.

The Spitalfields Society

120 Whereas we have raised fundamental objections to previous schemes for this site we are very much happier with Exemplar’s current proposal. We wrote to Tower Hamlets Council in support of the application and were disappointed when it was refused consent. We have noted the Mayor’s reasons for reviewing the application and entirely agree with these as we are keen the site should be brought back into beneficial use.

121 The Society wishes to express support for the following elements of the scheme: retention and restoration of LFWE Brushfield Street facade; creation of a new pedestrian arcade; the new north- south public route and public spaces; retention of bank and public house uses; redevelopment of the multi-storey car park; and, the general quality of the detailed design and brickwork detailing. However, the Society remains dissatisfied with the presence and response of the pavilion building to White’s Row; and, the design of the upper two storeys. We have discussed these issues with the developer and trust that these elements can be conditioned for further improvement at the detailed design stage.

page 26 122 The Society welcomes the intention to secure local improvements by planning obligation to improve the public realm/tackle issues of anti-social behaviour. The Society would support funding to reinstate public toilets on Commercial Street to resolve the lack of existing facilities in the area.

Whitechapel Society

123 The Whitechapel Society object to the application to develop with London Fruit and Wool Exchange site. We believe the exchange needs to be preserved for the local community. We were pleased to hear an application was recently turned down [by Tower Hamlets Council].

East London History Society

124 We back the decision taken by Tower Hamlets Council [to refuse the application] and we oppose the development of the site by Exemplar Properties. Large office blocks are appropriate along the City boundary in Broadgate and Bishopsgate, but not here where this proposed development would impact on community resources and heritage assets (including Christ Church Spitalfields).

East London Business Alliance

125 The East London Business Alliance would like to indicate its support for the proposal, and to welcome the applicant’s engagement with the Alliance on how best to ensure that genuine local employment opportunities are generated by the development. The Alliance operates a “Beyond Boundary” project, which seeks to enhance employment opportunities for disadvantaged young people, and is active in the area.

Twentieth Century Society

126 Further to our letters of objection to Tower Hamlets Council regarding this scheme, we wish to withdraw our objection.

Brick Lane Restaurants Association

127 I would like to make clear our support for this scheme. The job opportunities that will be created by the regeneration of this site will make a major contribution to the sustainability of businesses within Brick Lane and the wider Spitalfields area. Providing shops along Brushfield Street will make the pedestrian route between the market and Brick Lane more inviting for visitors, and I welcome the retention of the LFWE facade. The design is in keeping with Spitalfields, the building will be high quality and will contribute positively to the area.

Christ Church Spitalfields (Rector)

128 I want to ask you to review this planning application which was not granted by Tower Hamlets Council despite the advice of its officers. I believe this to be the best plan so far for this site and the applicant has undertaken an excellent consultation programme. If this application is not approved this large site within Spitalfields will continue to be under used, unwelcoming and unhealthy for many years to come.

Chris Duffield, Town Clerk & Chief Executive, City of London Corporation

129 It is important to point out that, notwithstanding some loud local objection, there is considerable local support for this scheme. All existing tenants of the LFWE have known about the plans for the site when taking short leases in the building. The decision to close the building is because parts of the building are in very poor condition. It is uneconomic to keep the building running

page 27 in its current state and, irrespective of the planning outcome, the City of London cannot keep running it on a marginal basis. A strategy to re-locate these tenants is already in place.

130 Comments were also provided on: recent press coverage of the application; and, the alternative proposal for the site. A briefing note was also addressed to Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff, setting out points with respect to: land ownership; demand for pre-lets; response to London’s world city role; potential local benefit; potential impact of local refusal for other projects; scheme’s response to context; regeneration and job creation; and, the quality of architect.

Exemplar Properties (Brushfield) LLP (applicant)

131 The applicant provided GLA officers with a briefing note critiquing the alternative proposal for the site developed and provided on behalf by Spitalfields Community Group and Spitalfields Trust. The applicant’s review of the revised proposal covers areas of: consultation; land use; environmental impact assessment; daylight and sunlight; application documentation; design; and, response to townscape.

132 In response to a request from GLA officers, the applicant also provided information on the architect short listing and selection process, indicating the considerations and relevant case studies which were examined to select Bennetts Associates Architects as the applicant’s chosen architect partner for the development.

Overview of all local community representations

133 Table 3 below provides an overview of the number and nature of the local representations on the case received by Tower Hamlets Council and the Mayor of London.

Representation Representation Initial Amended plans Direct to Mayor Total type format consultation consultation of London Individual 49 10 62 121 representation Standard letter 51 0 2 53 Objection 3 (843 signatures, 113 specific Petition 2 1 1 (duplicate) comments) 287 representations Total objections 843 petition signatories Representation Representation Initial Amended plans Direct to Mayor Total type format consultation consultation of London Individual 9 1 62 72 representation Standard letter 61 53 6 120 Support Petition 0 0 0 0

Total support 192 representations

Table 3: Overview table of community representations. (Figures accurate at time of report publication).

134 The issues raised within the representations are grouped by theme and summarised below.

Representations of objection

Land use principle (employment, mix of uses and retail)

 The proposed development does not respond positively to the established mix of uses in Spitalfields;

page 28  The proposed development should contain residential accommodation;  Loss of space for 61 small businesses currently provided for in LFWE;  Loss of local jobs;  Reduced local employment diversity;  Proposed small and medium sized business space is insufficient;  Loss of ancillary squash courts and gym without viable replacement facilities;  Adverse impact on economic prosperity and tourism in Brick Lane and Spitalfields due to loss of parking;

Design (urban design, public realm/open space, views, heritage and demolition in a Conservation Area)

 Scale of the proposed development would be monolithic and out of character;  Height would be inappropriate and would dominate Christ Church Spitalfields;  Design is bland/unattractive, of poor architectural quality, and is not appropriate for this prominent and sensitive location, within a Conservation Area;  Proposed public space will become a focus for anti-social activity;  Loss of The Gun and the bank;  Extent of proposed demolition, and the replacement building, would have an adverse effect on the setting of surrounding heritage assets, and a detrimental effect on a Conservation Area;  Lack of street activity at the ground floor of the elevations;  The Gun is a prominent local landmark;  Lack of permeability due to the development occupying the whole site;  Loss of private service road (Duval Street) formerly known as Dorset Street;

Sustainable development

 The proposed redevelopment (rather than refurbishment of existing buildings) is not sustainable development;

Environmental issues

 Noise and disturbance from customers using proposed ground floor uses (including public house and restaurant);

Transport

 Impact of loading area on traffic congestion in Crispin Street;  Loss of parking within the multi-storey car park; and,  Loss of parking for local employees and visitors.

Representations of support

Principle of development (employment, mix of uses and retail)

 Support for proposed uses, particularly a public house use to replace the existing The Gun;  The proposed development would provide varied employment spaces and create jobs for local people;

Design (urban design, public realm/open space, views, heritage and demolition in a Conservation Area)

 Building design is a sensitive, practical solution, and responds to local needs;  Scale, mass and relationship to Christ Church Spitalfields is appropriate;

page 29  Support for retention of LFWE facade on Brushfield Street;  Support varied approach to street elevations and proposed north-south route;  Support for new public space;  Opportunity for replacement tree planting to improve vista of Christ Church Spitalfields;  Support removal of multi-storey car park;

Sustainable development

 Support for tree planting and greening;

Environmental issues

 Support for (unspecified) environmental improvements;  Support for removal of multi-storey car park which is a focus for anti-social behaviour;

Transport

 Opportunity to improve junction of White’s Row with Commercial Street; and,

Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations

 Support for a planning obligations package that would address a local deficiency in public toilets.

Representations summary

135 The issues raised by the consultation responses, and the various other representations received, are appropriately addressed within the material planning considerations section of this report, and, where appropriate, through the proposed planning conditions, planning obligations and informatives outlined in the recommendation section of this report.

Material planning considerations

136 Having regard to the facts of the case; relevant planning policy at the local, regional and national levels; and, the consultations responses and representations received, the principal planning issues raised by these applications that the Mayor must consider are:

 Land use principle (comprising issues of employment, mix of uses and retail);  Design (comprising issues of urban design, views [strategic and local], public realm and open space, heritage, and demolition in a Conservation Area);  Inclusive design;  Sustainability;  Environmental issues (including neighbourhood amenity);  Transport; and,  Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations.

page 30 Land use principle

Employment

137 The LFWE currently provides commercial space for 61 businesses, which support approximately 300 jobs. Table 4 below provides a comparison of the existing provision of employment generating floorspace at the site, against that which is proposed.

Existing floorspace Proposed Use Net change (sq.m.) (sq.m.) floorspace (sq.m.) Office space 20,996 35,417 + 14,421 Dedicated SME workspace 0 2,000 + 2,000 Public house 300 300 0 Retail/other A Class uses 1,635 2,777 + 1,142 Total 22,931 40,494 + 17,563 Table 4: Proposed net change of on-site employment generating uses in floorspace (gross external area) terms.

138 The table demonstrates that the proposal would deliver 17,563 sq.m. of additional employment floorspace at the site. Based on expected employment densities, the applicant has estimated that the redevelopment would generate in the region of 2,600 jobs once completed. This would represent an uplift of approximately 2,300 jobs at the site.

Relevant employment policy context

139 Chapter 1 of the NPPF seeks to build a strong, competitive economy, and states that, “Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.” This chapter goes on to say “Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. 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.”

140 The site is located in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and City Fringe opportunity area, as identified in the London Plan.

141 London Plan Policy 2.10 recognises the “unique international, national and Londonwide roles of the Central Activities Zone,” and the “rich mix of local as well as strategic uses… [which form] the globally iconic core of one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business locations”. In seeking to enable development that would address the needs of this role, Policy 2.11 promotes “solutions to constraints on office provision and other commercial development imposed by heritage designations without compromising local environmental quality, including through high quality design to complement these designations”. Policy 4.2 of the London Plan states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should, “meet the distinct needs of the central London office market, including the north of the Isle of Dogs, by sustaining and developing its unique and dynamic clusters of ‘world city’ and other specialist functions and business environments”.

142 London Plan Policy 2.13 sets out the Mayor’s policy on opportunity areas. London Plan paragraph 2.58 states that “opportunity areas are the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility.” London Plan Table A1.1 sets out the strategic policy direction for the City Fringe opportunity area. This states that the City Fringe opportunity area “contains a number of accessible, relatively central sites with significant development capacity, including Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch and Whitechapel/Aldgate. The Area provides

page 31 particular scope to support London’s critical mass of financial and business services and clusters of other economic activity, such as creative industries. Minor extensions of the CAZ should assist the realisation of development capacity and exploit public transport accessibility through Crossrail 1 stations at Liverpool Street and Whitechapel and at the East London Line stations.” Further detail with respect to the spatial expression of these principles in strategic terms exists within the consultation draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2008).

143 The Tower Hamlets Core Strategy supports these regional priorities and recognises the economic benefits derived from the Borough’s central London location. Objective SO15 of the Core Strategy seeks to “support the thriving and accessible global economic centres of Canary Wharf and the City Fringe which benefit the regional and local economies.” Objective SO16 promotes the growth of existing and future business “in accessible and appropriate locations.” Giving effect to these objectives, Core Strategy Policy SP01 makes clear that, with respect to the CAZ, the Council intends to manage its function in relation to the hierarchy of other centres within the borough by applying London Plan CAZ policy. Core Strategy Policy SP06 builds on this approach, and seeks to “maximise and deliver investment and job creation in the Borough”.

Principle of office use

144 Policy 2.10 of the London Plan identifies the strategic priorities within the CAZ, and seeks to enhance and promote the roles it fulfils, which include being one of world’s most attractive and competitive business locations. London Plan Policy 4.2 states that the Mayor will “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…”. Policy 4.2 also states that the Mayor will, and boroughs should, “encourage renewal and modernisation of the existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility”. Furthermore, part A(d) of this strategic policy seeks “increases in the current stock where there is authoritative, strategic and local evidence of sustained demand for office-based activities”.

Evidence of sustained office demand

145 The strategic evidence for office demand in this location is expressed within Table 4.1 of the London Plan, which acts in support of strategic policy 4.2, and establishes the demand for office based jobs and floorspace up to 2031. Within the CAZ and the north of the Isle of Dogs there is expected to be a demand for 177,000 office jobs (58% of total office based employment growth), and up to 3,070,000 sq.m. of office floorspace. Paragraph 2.46 of the London Plan states “It will be important to ensure an adequate supply of office accommodation and other workspaces in the CAZ/Isle of Dogs suitable to meet the needs of a growing and changing economy”.

146 The most current strategic evidence, embodied within the 2012 London Office Policy Review report (LOPR), underlines this demand, but also identifies a significant supply pipeline of office schemes at varying stages of development (from inception to delivery). The 2012 LOPR indicates that this pipeline is potentially capable of meeting the forecast demand, and, furthermore, identifies a potential oversupply of office floorspace within the pipeline for Tower Hamlets, and Greater London as a whole. However, the 2012 LOPR acknowledges that the fruition of schemes within the pipeline is by no means guaranteed, and, ultimately, the mechanics of actual supply and demand will be subject to market realities over time.

147 Whilst acknowledging the above, the 2012 LOPR identifies a general demand for high quality new flexible office space, capable of offering new formats of employment spaces to respond to market trends. With respect to the central London office market, the 2012 LOPR report articulates the common view among many market practitioners, that demand for office space will pick up towards the end of 2012, and that there will be an upturn in 2013.

page 32 148 The Tower Hamlets Core Strategy does not set targets for office floorspace growth over the plan period, however, local evidence for office space demand exists within the Council’s 2009 Employment Land Study (ELS), which forms part of the evidence base to the Core Strategy. The 2009 ELS review of the B1 office market within the City Fringe confirms its role in complementing the function of markets within the City, and notes its diverse tenant base. Table 4 within the 2009 ELS projects an additional (net) demand of between 150,141 and 210,337 sq.m. of B1 office floorspace within the Tower Hamlets portion of the City Fringe up to 2026. This demand should, however, be seen in the context of the supply pipeline discussed in paragraph 146 above. A review of the 2009 ELS, within the Council’s Spatial Economy Study (2011), confirms the need for new office development to be delivered to meet this demand, but notes that potential pipeline supply would exceed the forecast demand. Nevertheless, the 2011 study acknowledges that pipeline supply is not guaranteed, and notes that Tower Hamlets has, since the 1990s, consistently had a pipeline of new office floorspace in excess of the demand forecast. In essence, this supports the view that market dynamics ultimately dictate which office schemes within the pipeline eventually mature to fruition.

149 When considering the evidence for office demand it is apparent that there is a firm regional and local need for new office floorspace within this CAZ/City Fringe location. Whilst it is noted that the potential supply pipeline would exceed the forecast demand at both the local and regional level, market forces are expected to prioritise the delivery of schemes in the most viable locations first. Against this context it is noted that the application site is highly favourable for office use in that it has excellent public transport accessibility, and is situated in a location that would allow the occupiers of the development to benefit from, and contribute to, a business cluster of greater than regional importance. On this basis, officers are content that the proposed office floorspace provision is acceptable when viewed against the evidence for sustained office demand at the local and regional levels.

Relevant site specific policy and characteristics with respect to office provision

150 Combined with its drive to maximise investment and job creation, part 2 of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP06 seeks to “focus larger floor-plate offices and intensify floorspace in Preferred Office Locations (POL)”. These locations are broadly identified as falling within the following areas: Canary Wharf; Bishopsgate road corridor; Aldgate; and, around Tower Gateway public transport interchange. The policy states that POL locations are not appropriate for housing, and that detailed POL boundaries and criteria will be defined respectively within the Site and Placemaking DPD and the Managing Development DPD.

151 An initial draft of the Site and Placemaking DPD (intended to define site allocations and spatial policy areas) was consulted on by the Council between May and July 2011. However, the GLA understands that the Council is currently using the Managing Development DPD as the vehicle for bringing forward site allocations, with spatial policy area designations expressed via the LDF Proposals Map. It is noted that whilst the proposed submission version of the LDF Proposals Map (2012) identifies nearby sites at Bishopsgate and 1 Bishops Square as within the proposed POL designation for the Bishopsgate road corridor, the application site falls outside of this boundary.

152 The emerging local policy context does not, therefore, specifically identify this site as a preferred location for the development of a large floor-plate office, nor accordingly, as an inappropriate location for housing. Nevertheless, in line with strategic CAZ policy within the London Plan, which is also given local effect through Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP01, there is scope to consider the merits of such an approach on a site specific basis.

153 As discussed above, the site is within the City Fringe opportunity area, and the CAZ, which forms part of a globally recognised core, and one of the world’s most attractive and competitive business locations. Development patterns at the site already display characteristics of a large building-

page 33 footprint/urban grain and much of the site is already in office use, comprising 20,996 sq.m. (gross external area) of Use Class B1 floorspace. The site is in a highly accessible location, and lies approximately 150 metres from the administrative boundary with the City of London. As such, the site provides an important opportunity to deliver new office floorspace to support a business hub of greater than regional significance, in an location where significant new office floorspace is generally restricted by existing built form and heritage assets.

154 The development proposals include the provision of 37,417 sq.m. (gross external area) B1 office floorspace, 2,000 sq.m. of which is proposed for small business use. The application, therefore, includes 16,421 sq.m. of additional office floorspace over the existing situation, representing a 44% increase in office floorspace provision at the site.

Principle of office use - conclusion

155 The London Plan policy context supporting new office development in the CAZ is set out in the sections above. It is also noted that the Council’s Core Strategy recognises the strategic priorities of the CAZ and City Fringe, and strongly supports business growth within these locations. The proposed office floorspace provision is acceptable when viewed against the evidence for sustained office demand at the local and regional levels, and whilst emerging local policy does not specifically identify this site as a preferred location for large floor-plate office development, subject to the acceptable resolution of other relevant planning issues, the characteristics of the site would certainly not preclude this. GLA officers are, therefore, content that the proposed office-led redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle.

Mix of uses

156 London Plan policies 2.11 and 4.3 set out the strategic approach to mixed use development linked to office schemes. Part A of these policies requires that, within the CAZ, “increases in office floorspace should provide for a mix of uses, including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies within this plan”. In line with Core Strategy Policy SP01, this principle of strategic CAZ policy is also to be applied directly at the local level.

157 The Mayor should note that, as discussed in paragraph 48, the scheme’s proposed response to London Plan CAZ mixed-use policy was cited as a reason for refusal by the Council, albeit, against the advice of its officers.

Application of London Plan CAZ mixed-use policy

158 London Plan paragraph 4.17 provides detail on the application of London Plan CAZ mixed-use policy. This states that “Within the Central Activities Zone and the north of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, strategically important office development should include other uses, including housing. As a general principle, housing and other uses should be required on-site or nearby to create mixed use neighbourhoods. Exceptions to this should only be permitted where mixed uses might compromise broader objectives, such as sustaining important clusters of business activity, for example in much of the City and the north of the Isle of Dogs, or where greater housing provision, especially of affordable family housing, can be secured beyond this area. In such circumstances, contributions to off-site housing provision should be required as part of a planning agreement.”

159 The London Plan would, therefore, strongly promote development proposals for this site that included the provision of on-site housing. However, strategic policies 2.11 and 4.3 recognise that, under certain circumstances, the inclusion of residential uses may compromise the ability of office development to fulfil the strategic functions of the CAZ.

page 34 160 The potential for residential uses to inhibit the function of strategic office development is recognised at the local level by Policy SP06 of the Council’s Core Strategy. However, as discussed in paragraph 150 above, the local approach is more prescriptive and specifically identifies preferred locations for large floor-plate office development, where on-site housing is actively discouraged. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application site falls outside the Council’s preferred office location (POL) at Bishopsgate road corridor, it shares a number of common characteristics (described in paragraph 153 above) with sites within the proposed POL designation. Accordingly, the rationale for an absence of on-site housing, as part of a proposal for office development that would support CAZ function, is also justifiable.

161 Having considered the nature of the proposed development, it is apparent that the scheme would respond to CAZ office needs in a way which would support of London’s role as a world city, as such officers have no concerns in this instance about the absence of residential uses on-site and consider the proposals a reasonable exception to the requirement for mixed use within the CAZ. As discussed in paragraph 166 below, the applicant has committed to making an off-site financial contribution towards affordable housing, as sought by the London Plan. It should, nevertheless, be noted that if a scheme which included office and residential uses on site, as part of a mixed use scheme, this would also accord with the mixed use policies of the London Plan, and officers would be unlikely to raise any objections to such a proposal in this regard. In these terms officers are of the view that the inclusion of residential uses as part of this development is not a London Plan policy requirement. The current scheme would help to deliver the aspirations of the City Fringe opportunity area, supporting CAZ priorities, and the broader objectives of London Plan policies 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13 and 4.2, the aims of which are set out above.

162 This approach is also in line with draft strategic guidance within the consultation draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2008), which indicates that, where large-scale office- led development would be proposed, this site would be considered as a potential exception to CAZ mixed-use policy.

163 Therefore, whilst the London Plan would normally promote the provision of housing on-site as part of a mixed use office development at this site, in this case, due to the clear potential for the development to help sustain the activities of the CAZ, an internationally significant cluster of business activity, GLA officers are content that housing is not proposed to be provided on-site. It should also be noted that in all other respects the scheme would provide for a rich variety of on-site uses, including the introduction of small-scale retail and eating/drinking establishments, to enliven the ground floor of the development. Furthermore, no existing housing would be lost as a result of the development.

Contribution to mixed use neighbourhoods

164 In line with strategic Policy 4.3, and supporting guidance in paragraph 4.17 of the London Plan, officers have explored options with the applicant and the Council for the development to contribute towards the delivery of housing nearby, to promote a mixed use neighbourhood. Accordingly, the applicant was required to investigate the potential for off-site housing provision nearby, with a financial contribution towards off-site housing within the locality of the site sought where an off-site housing provision could not be achieved.

165 Following joint discussions with the applicant and the Council with respect to scheme viability, informed by the findings of an independent viability appraisal, GLA officers accept that the development would not be able to fund a standalone off-site housing scheme. Therefore, a financial contribution to support delivery of additional affordable housing, on an identified nearby site, was pursued as the appropriate response in this instance.

page 35 166 Following negotiations, the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution of £1,000,000 towards off-site affordable housing provision, which will be secured as part of a section 106 legal agreement (refer to paragraph 345). The earmarking of this contribution exclusively for affordable housing is in line with London Plan Policy 8.2, which sets out the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations. The agreement will be worded such that the contribution will be targeted at a housing scheme within the vicinity of the site, and used to increase the number of affordable homes that will be delivered. Discussions with the Council have identified a suitable development site, within 300 metres of the site, which could potentially benefit from this contribution. To allow for a reasonable degree of flexibility, however, officers will also consider other suitable sites within the vicinity of the site, within a radius/area agreed with Tower Hamlets Council. In line with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12, which seek to maximise the provision of affordable housing taking account of: future resources as far as possible (Policy 3.11); and, the availability of public subsidy (Policy 3.12), the GLA will expect this contribution to assist in the delivery of the affordable rent product.

167 Provided that the requirements detailed above are appropriately secured by way of the section 106 legal agreement, the application is in accordance with London Plan polices 2.11 and 4.3.

Mix of employment uses

168 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP06, and the principles for Spitalfields set out within Chapter 9 (Annex: Delivering placemaking), express the local approach to promoting mixed employment uses to support office development.

169 Policy SP06 seeks “the creation of a sustainable, diversified and balanced economy by ensuring a sufficient range, mix and quality of employment uses and spaces, with a particular focus on the small and medium enterprise sector.” Part 3(c) of this policy encourages the retention and provision of units (of approximately 250 sq.m. or less) suitable for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

170 The existing LFWE provides 20,996 sq.m. (gross external area) of B1 floorspace. Whilst this floorspace has not been classified as dedicated SME space (as internal partitions defining small and medium ‘unit’ sizes within the building cannot currently be controlled), it is acknowledged that a number of small and medium sized businesses currently operate at the site, albeit on short term leases.

171 As set out in Table 2 above, the development would provide 2,000 sq.m. of dedicated SME floorspace. The design and access statement indicates that this would translate to ten individual SME units, provided over two floors (five on lower ground floor and five on ground floor), accessed via an SME reception area at the ground floor from Commercial Street. In accordance with Policy SP06, part 3(c), the safeguarding of this space for SMEs, and parameters with respect to the sizing of these units, will be controlled as part of the section 106 legal agreement, in order to ensure rents would be affordable for small businesses.

172 It is evident that the dedicated SME space proposed within the development would not allow for the retention of all floorspace at the site which is currently used by small and medium sized businesses. However, on the basis that the existing office floorspace within the LFWE cannot be controlled as dedicated SME space, and in light of the strategic need to deliver new office floorspace with larger floor-plates to support the CAZ (discussed above), officers are content, on balance, that retention/like for like replacement of space for small and medium sized businesses would not be reasonably achieved on site. Accordingly, an assessment of proposals to mitigate the displacement of existing businesses at the LFWE is provided below.

page 36 Displacement of existing businesses

173 The proposed redevelopment would result in the displacement of up to 61 businesses, and 300 jobs, which are currently accommodated within the LFWE. The applicant has confirmed that the City of London has been letting space within the building on a flexible, subsidised, short-term basis, and that all tenants have been made aware of the plans to develop the site. It is understood that tenants have a minimum of six months notice in their leases, and that the tenants were made aware of the forthcoming redevelopment plans when they entered into leases.

174 Submission stage Policy DM15, within the draft Managing Development DPD, provides the emerging local approach for managing development that would be likely to displace existing businesses. Part 2 of the draft policy states “Development which is likely to adversely impact on or displace an existing business must find a suitable replacement accommodation within the borough unless it can be shown that the needs of the business are better met elsewhere.”

175 In line with this emerging policy the applicant, working in conjunction with the City of London Corporation, has developed a business decant and relocation strategy. The strategy is managed by the City of London Corporation and has included dedicated open days and workshops, for a minimum of six months, where relocation assistance is provided to existing LFWE tenants. In summary, the strategy is as follows:

 Extended notice period for vacant possession provided to all existing tenants;  First right of refusal to occupy new SME space created in the new scheme;  Transitional relief on rent to existing tenants (first year rent free and second year at half rent);  First right of refusal offered to tenants for space within other City of London owned buildings in both Tower Hamlets and neighbouring Boroughs;  Active relocation strategy being run by the City of London Property Advisory Team in conjunction with Tower Hamlets Council’s Employment & Enterprise Team;  Advice provided on relocation process, professional advisors and assistance to identify relocation options; and,  Financial assistance to mitigate costs associated with relocation.

176 In addition, the applicant has stated that the City of London Corporation is keen to retain as many of the LFWE tenants as possible within other buildings that it manages for small business space. Officers understand that, to this end, 1 Alie Street in Aldgate has been specifically prepared and refurbished to provide a potentially suitable relocation option within the borough of Tower Hamlets.

177 Officers are content that the proposed relocation strategy is suitably comprehensive, well resolved and implementable. However, it is acknowledged that the planning system cannot guarantee that all of the displaced businesses will, in fact, relocate within the borough. Similarly, it is not possible to guarantee that the new jobs opportunities created at this site as a result of the redevelopment would be taken up by Tower Hamlets residents. Therefore, to mitigate the potential impacts of displacing the small and medium sized businesses from the LFWE in local employment terms, the applicant has proposed an employment and training strategy which will be secured within the section 106 legal agreement. This response accords with the principles of London Plan Policy 4.12, and the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, which highlights the currently low proportion of residents finding work within the borough, and indentifies a skills mismatch as one of the contributing factors to this.

Local employment and training

178 The employment and training strategy will operate both during the construction phase, and in the longer term following completion of the development. During the course of construction initiatives will include: apprenticeships (minimum 25); 20% of construction jobs to be provided to

page 37 Tower Hamlets residents; work placements (minimum 144 weeks across all functions); 20% of suppliers and services to be provided by local suppliers; and, ‘Job Ready’ construction training to be provided for local construction staff. The longer term strategy will include: work placements (minimum 20 p.a.) for local students; commitment to engagement with local schools and careers fairs; mentoring programme for local students; target minimum 20% on-site ‘local employment’ at redeveloped LFWE site; advance notification of all new jobs to Tower Hamlets Council’s Employment and Enterprise Team; and, ‘meet the buyer’ business to business networking events to promote local trade.

179 The applicant is also proposing to assist with the establishment of an on-site local Employment and Skills Centre (of 500 sq.m. floorspace), provided rent and service charge free for a period of ten years. A financial contribution of £500,000 is also proposed towards the set up of the new centre. Discussions with the applicant and the Council have confirmed that the Employment and Skills Centre could be accommodated within the proposed pavilion building, at the south west corner of the site. Council officers are supportive of this approach, and GLA officers will secure the details of the on-site provision of the employment and skills centre as part of the section 106 legal agreement.

Displacement of existing businesses - conclusion

180 A robust business decant and relocation strategy is in progress to mitigate the impact of displacement on the displaced businesses themselves. Furthermore, the proposed development will be supported by a comprehensive employment and training strategy, secured as a planning obligation of the scheme, which will provide a wide range of tangible benefits in terms of bridging local skills gaps and promoting local employment opportunities. These benefits, coupled with the overall uplift in employment levels at the site, clearly outweigh any adverse impacts resulting from displacement of existing businesses and jobs at the LFWE.

Impact of lost parking on local economy

181 As discussed in paragraph 22 above, the White’s Row car park would be demolished as part of the redevelopment. It is noted that a number of local objections have been raised relating to the loss of the multi-storey car park and the potential impact that this may have on businesses and visitors, especially on market days (Sunday). The car park is open from 06:00 to 19:00 Sunday to Friday and 06:00 to 13:30 on Saturdays, and provides free parking facilities for motorcycles and charged parking facilities for cars. The objections crystallise around the principal concern that the loss of the multi- storey car park might have adverse impacts on the local economy. Matters of parking provision are addressed in the transport section of this report, however, the economic impact of the loss of the multi-storey car park is considered below.

182 The parking study submitted in support of the application has identified that whilst the White’s Row car park is well used by motorcycles, it is under utilised by cars. This is likely to be influenced by the provision of free parking for motorcycles and the location of the car park within the London Congestion Charging Zone. The applicant’s Transport Assessment nevertheless notes that the car park is most heavily used by cars on Sundays, corresponding with the busiest day for Spitalfields Market, and also occurring during a period when the Congestion Charge is not in force, and when the car park operates on a flat daily charge. However, surveys carried out as part of the parking assessment indicated that, even at the busiest times on market day, the car park was only 50% utilised.

183 The parking study identifies that there are various other off-street car parks in the area that could support market day parking needs and, whilst not providing free motorcycle parking, would also cater for motorcycles. The Council’s Transportation and Highways team has found that the car and motorcycle parking displaced from White’s Row could be accommodated in numeric terms across other local car parks and on-street provision. It is also noted that a limited number of designated free on- street motorcycle bays are available in Bell Lane (6), Wentworth Street (8) and Spital Square (3).

page 38 184 As discussed in the transport section of this report, the proposed level of parking provision is acceptable. Considering the provision of other local parking facilities, and the high public transport accessibility of the area, officers are satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that the loss of the multi-storey car park would adversely impact on market traders or market users, or have a detrimental impact on the economic vitality of Spitalfields.

Loss of ancillary/temporary uses

185 As discussed in paragraph 16 above, activities at the site include a small private medical centre (operating on a temporary basis), and a private gym with squash courts (now closed) which operated as an ancillary use to the existing small business space, without separate planning permission. Officers understand that the gym closed following the establishment of a new outlet by the same operator in the Nido Tower, at Frying Pan Alley, south west of the site.

186 As discussed in paragraphs 41 and 42, temporary planning permission was granted for the medical centre for the duration of the applicant’s leasehold use and occupation. The scheduled cessation of this temporary use at the site does not raise a concern in planning terms.

187 It is noted, however, that a number of objections have been made on the basis that the proposed redevelopment of the site would not provide a gym, and in particular squash courts, to replace those which recently closed at the site. The Mayor should note that, as discussed in paragraph 346, a financial contribution towards indoor leisure facilities will be secured as part of the section 106 legal agreement, in line with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD. Having regard to the mitigation proposed, and considering also the economic benefits of the scheme, officers are content that the loss of the on-site ancillary leisure facilities is acceptable.

Retail

188 London Plan Policy 2.10 seeks to “support and improve the retail offer of the CAZ for residents, workers and visitors…”, and Core Strategy Policy SP01 reinforces this approach at the local level. LAP 1&2 (Sptialfields) within Annex 9 of the Core Strategy seeks to “promote mixed-use development which adds to the vibrancy, economy and character of the area”. Also relevant is London Plan Policy 4.7, which seeks to ensure “the scale of retail, commercial, culture and leisure development should be related to the size, role and function of a town centre and its catchment…”.

189 The proposed development includes a mix of retail, restaurant and cafe units (totalling 3,077 sq.m. gross external area). This will be located at the ground floor, fronting adjoining streets and the proposed north-south route through the site. The retail uses would be concentrated along the Brushfield Street frontage, accessed via the arcade behind the retained facade. The proposed units would be 300 sq.m. in size or less, to provide a balance of provision commensurate with the immediate location, which is characterised by small-scale independent shops, interspersed with food and drink uses. Planning conditions are also recommended to prevent the amalgamation of smaller units, and limiting the proportion of Use Class A3 and A4 units.

190 Officers are content that the proposed retail provision is appropriate in nature and scale, and would contribute to the vibrancy, economy and character of Spitalfields in line with the priorities for the area set out in the Core Strategy.

Principle of development conclusion

191 The scheme would deliver an employment-led mixed used redevelopment of the site which would provide a variety of business space prioritising large floor-plate office space, but also providing high quality SME space and small-scale retail accommodation. The proposal is expected to generate an uplift of approximately 2,300 jobs at the site, and will also facilitate short and longer-term local

page 39 employment and training opportunities. The scheme would contribute towards the creation of a mixed use neighbourhood through the provision of various active ground floor uses, and a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing delivery, within the vicinity of the development.

192 The principle of the development in land use terms is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF, London Plan policies 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7 and 4.12; Tower Hamlets Core Strategy polices SP01 and SP06; Tower Hamlets saved UDP policies CAZ1, DEV3, EMP1, EMP6, EMP7 and EMP8; policies CFR10 and EE2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft Policy DM15 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD. Design

Urban design

193 Chapter 7 of the NPPF states that “Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

194 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven, which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other relevant design polices in this chapter include specific design requirements relating to: optimising the development potential of sites (Policy 7.6); tall and large scale buildings (Policy 7.7); heritage assets (Policy 7.8); heritage-led regeneration (Policy 7.9); local character (Policy 7.4); public realm (Policy 7.5); architecture (Policy 7.6); and, designing out crime (Policy 7.3).

195 In terms of the local policy context, Chapter 6 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy sets out principles for designing a high-quality city including: creating attractive and safe streets and spaces (SP09); and, creating distinct and durable places (SP10). Saved UDP Policy DEV1 is also relevant, and emerging Policy DM24 in the draft Managing Development DPD states “Development will be required to be designed to the highest quality standards, incorporating principles of good design, including: ensuring design is sensitive to and enhances the local character and setting of the development, taking into account the surrounding: scale, height, mass, bulk and form of development; building plot sizes, plot coverage and street patterns; building lines and setbacks, roof lines, streetscape rhythm and other streetscape elements; design details and elements; and natural environment.”

196 A description of the proposed built form is provided within the details of the proposal section of this report. In considering the urban design merits of the proposed development, officers have had regard to the requirement to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and the effect of the proposed development on the setting of adjacent heritage assets, in particular, the key view along Brushfield Street towards Christ Church Spitalfields. Heritage issues are specifically addressed within the corresponding section below.

197 The Mayor is advised that the Council identified an “inappropriate” design approach within the reasons for refusal (against the advice of its officers). The replacement building was considered inappropriate due to: proposed scale, bulk and massing; the elimination of divisions between buildings within an urban block; failure to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and, harm to the setting of (unspecified) neighbouring Listed Buildings.

198 It should be noted, however, that the consideration within the Council officer’s committee report of 6 March 2012 finds that the new development is “well conceived” and relates well to the historic and more modern buildings within its setting.

page 40 Layout of site

199 The proposal involves the demolition of all existing buildings at this CAZ site (with the exception of the LFWE Brushfield Street facade), in order to create a single urban block. Matters with respect to the extent of demolition, and loss of existing buildings are addressed within the heritage section of this report.

200 London Plan Policy 7.7 sets out criteria for tall and large-scale buildings, and seeks to steer such development to suitable sites within the CAZ, where it is crucial to meet the needs of the Zone. As discussed in the employment section of this report, this particular site represents one of a finite number of City Fringe locations capable of supporting the large floor-plate office needs of the CAZ. The site description section of this report makes clear that existing development patterns at the application site already display characteristics of large building-footprints, which, along with similar development patterns at Spitalfields Market and 1 Bishops Square, exist against a setting of much finer grain development within the Conservation Area. In this context, the rationale of redeveloping this site for large footprint development is sound, and accords with the principles of strategic Policy 7.7.

201 London Plan Policy 7.7 also seeks to ensure that: large-scale buildings incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials; have ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to the surrounding streets; and, contribute to improving the permeability of the site and wider area, where possible. The proposal’s response to these matters is considered below.

Connections and permeability

202 Whilst a private service road running east-west through the site would be lost as part of the development, the proposal would improve the permeability of the public realm through the provision of a new north-south route. The existing service road, which follows the route of historic Dorset Street (a former public highway), is not publically accessible and offers no benefit in terms of permeability. The service road is also poor in terms of quality and passive surveillance. By way of contrast, the new north-south route would be activated by retail and commercial uses, and would link Brushfield Street with White’s Row, responding to a pedestrian desire line between Spitalfields Market and Liverpool Street Station, via Artillery Lane. The loss of the private east-west route does not raise a concern in urban design terms, and the new north-south route is supported in line with London Plan policies 7.1 and 7.7; Core Strategy Policy SP09; and, draft Policy DM23 within the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Height and massing

203 The height of the proposed building has been generally informed by that of the existing LFWE building, and its 1960s rooftop extension. The building would be six-storeys (three metres taller than the LFWE at present), but with the top two floors set back nine metres from the principal elevations. The set back is intended to reduce the visibility of the fifth and sixth storeys from surrounding streets, and is successful in this regard. The building height of the principal elevation also steps down (to three-storeys) towards White’s Row, responding to the sensitive character of this street.

204 As discussed in the heritage section of this report, the proposed approach to the massing would preserve eastward views towards Christ Church Spitalfields along Brushfield Street. Furthermore, whilst the building mass of the proposal would represent a noticeable increase over the existing situation in northward views along Commercial Street, the stepped massing is appropriate in its response to White’s Row, and the development would improve the legibility and coherence of the built form along this part of Commercial Street.

page 41 Views (strategic and local)

205 London Plan Policy 7.11 sets out the Mayor’s approach to the managed protection of strategic views. London Plan Policy 7.12 builds on this and states that new development should not harm, and where possible should make a positive contribution to, the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and their landmark elements.

206 The application site is oversailed by the background assessment area for River Prospect Views 15B.1 and 15B.2 (looking downstream from Waterloo Bridge), as defined by strategic Policy 7.11, and supporting guidance within the London View Management Framework SPG (2012).

207 Submitted plans confirm that the proposed six-storey building would represent a relative height of 40.62 metres above ordnance datum. Having had regard to the built context within the viewing corridor, between the application site and St. Paul’s Cathedral (the strategic landmark in these views), officers are satisfied that existing large-scale City development (including ten to thirteen- storey office blocks on the west side of Bishopsgate, and various tall buildings southwest of Liverpool Street Station), would entirely block the proposal from these views. Officers have not, therefore, sought the provision of verified views to demonstrate this.

208 Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not harm the River Prospect Views 15B.1 and 15B.2, and the application accords with London Plan policies 7.11 and 7.12.

209 The impact of the proposal on local views is considered in detail within the heritage section below, and is acceptable in accordance with the NPPF; London Plan Policy 7.9; Core Strategy policies SO22 and SP10; saved UDP Policy DEV8; and, Interim Planning Guidance policies CP50, CON5, CFR1 and CFR12.

Architectural appearance and materials

210 In response to the Mayor’s initial representations, made at the statutory consultation stage, revised plans were submitted which refined the elevational treatment of the building. The revisions (discussed in paragraph 45) promote a more distinct treatment for the key corner plots along Brushfield Street, and introduce additional white stone detailing. The rhythm of fenestration has been revised to more closely reflect that of the existing pub and bank corner buildings, and the chamfered corners have been refined to provide a more solid appearance. The revisions are welcomed, and adequately address the Mayor’s design concerns, which sought a greater degree of variation and detailing.

211 The retention of the Brushfield Street facade of the LFWE is an important component of the appearance of this development, and a highly successful part of the proposal. The architectural response for the rest of the building takes its cues from this key elevation, whilst seeking to provide a bespoke and contemporary response to the differing townscape settings which surround the site. The primary facing material would be red brick, referencing the LFWE and Spitalfields Market opposite, with white stone detailing proposed in conjunction, to respond to the accents of the LFWE and the palette of Christ Church Spitalfields. The white stone is principally used to articulate the boundary between floors on elevations, but is also used as a ground floor facing material at the key corner components on Commercial Street/Brushfield Street and Brushfield Street/Crispin Street. The fifth and sixth-storeys are given a contemporary glazed treatment to ensure that these floors would remain light in appearance, and distinct from the retained facade of the LFWE.

212 The external treatments and detailing proposed are of a high quality and respond well to the challenges of such a sensitive context. Along with the Brushfield Street elevation, the eastern Commercial Street frontage will be a particularly prominent face of the development. Rather than providing a singular treatment for this flank of the building, the design has sought to deconstruct the

page 42 massing and detailing of this elevation into three distinct elements - the replacement corner building at the junction with Brushfield Street, the main building elevation, and a three-storey element which is used to articulate the step down towards White’s Row. This creates a changing rhythm of brick piers, which, when combined with variations in the solid to void ratios between these elements, is successful in enriching the built form of the Commercial Street elevation with detail and a varied articulation of massing.

Ground floor uses

213 With the exception of the entrance to the service area on Crispin Street, the proposed building would provide activity along all elevations at the ground floor, including cafe and retail uses, to activate the internal courtyard public space. The Brushfield Street elevation has been designed to contribute to the vitality of the streetscene through the provision of a mix of units and uses within an arcade behind the retained facade. This is intended to operate in a similar way to the northern side of the street at Spitalfields Market. The provision of these uses will significantly improve the vibrancy of the site compared to the existing situation and will contribute to activity and passive surveillance in line with London Plan Policy 7.3 and local objectives to contribute towards ground-level activity and improve safety and security (Core Strategy LAP 1&2). In line with the Mayor’s previous comments on the scheme (which sought to ensure that the proposed ground floor uses would create a degree of vibrancy along the arcade and north-south route, outside office hours), activity at the site will be positively encouraged through the site management strategy, suitable retail opening hours, and the provision of public art, all of which will be appropriately secured by planning condition.

Public realm and public spaces

214 As discussed in paragraph 202 above, the proposed creation a new north-south route through the site is welcomed, and will improve the block’s permeability. The development will also create two new areas of activated public space, in the form of a 410 sq.m. internal courtyard, and a 1,800 sq.m. area of outdoor space framed by the proposed pavilion building and retail/restaurant space. These spaces will be linked to the wider public realm by the proposed north-south route, and will provide valuable new opportunities for rest and escape from the City in accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 7.5, Core Strategy policies SP09 and SP10, and draft Policy DM23 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Urban design conclusion

215 The design of the proposal is well resolved, responds positively to the challenges of the site and its context, and accords with the NPPF, London Plan policies 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 and 7.12; Core Strategy policies SP09 and SP10; saved UDP Policy DEV1; and, draft Policy DM24 in the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Heritage

216 Chapter 12 of the NPPF sets out key principles for conserving and enhancing the historic environment and states that “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal… taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.” This chapter also sets out key principles for the assessment of heritage impact when determining planning applications. The assessment criteria in this case is summarised in the assessment of heritage impact section below.

217 London Plan Policy 7.8 seeks to ensure that new development would “identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate.” This policy also states that “Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.” London Plan Policy 7.9

page 43 builds on this approach and states that “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.” London Plan Policy 2.11 promotes “solutions to constraints on office provision and other commercial development imposed by heritage designations without compromising local environmental quality, including through high quality design to complement these designations”.

218 Local heritage policies comprise: SP10 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy; saved policy DEV28 of the Unitary Development Plan; emerging Policy DM27 of the draft Managing Development DPD (submission version); and Policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007. Also relevant with respect to important local views are: Core Strategy policies SO22 and SP10; saved UDP Policy DEV8; and, Interim Planning Guidance policies CP50, CON5, CFR1 and CFR12.

219 The Mayor should note that the Council identified the demolition of The Gun and LFWE, and the associated loss of their positive contribution to the Conservation Area, in its reasons for refusal of the application. It should also be noted, however, that the consideration within the Council’s committee reports of 6 March 2012 and 31 May 2012 finds that the level of harm caused to heritage as a result of the development would be outweighed by the wider public benefits of the scheme.

Local heritage context

220 The site is located within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area adjacent to a number of designated heritage assets including: Christ Church Spitalfields (Grade I listed); Spitalfields Market, 5 Whites Row, 40, 42 and 52 Brushfield Street (all Grade II listed); and, Artillery Passage Conservation Area.

221 The site itself is occupied by four buildings: LFWE; The Gun; the bank; and, the multi-storey car park. None of these buildings are Listed, or Locally Listed, however, the Council’s adopted Character Appraisal and Management Guidelines for the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area specifically refers to the positive contribution of the LFWE thus: “The City of London’s Fruit and Wool exchange and Old Spitalfields Market are buildings of interest in themselves, and make a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. They were placed into the Fournier Street and Brick Lane Conservation Areas instead of other adjoining Conservation Areas because they form the prime focus for the setting of the front elevation of Christchurch Spitalfields.”

222 A summary assessment of the individual buildings at the site, based on all available evidence provided to the GLA, follows below.

London Fruit and Wool Exchange - undesignated heritage asset

223 The Fruit and Wool Exchange was constructed in 1929 by Sidney Perks, the City Surveyor, in a neo-Georgian style. It is closely associated with the historic fruit and vegetable market at Old Spitalfields Market. The building itself occupies the majority of the urban block bounded by Brushfield Street, Crispin Street, White’s Row and Commercial Street, with its civic-scale classical facades constructed of red brick with Portland stone dressings. The principal elevation onto Brushfield Street directly addresses the market opposite, and features a barrel-vaulted Portland stone centrepiece. The interrelationship between the LFWE and the market is significant as this recalls an era of expanding market related activities in the early twentieth century. With respect to the role of the LFWE in terms of its positive contribution to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, the Council’s Character Appraisal states that: “Its merit lies in its sympathetic relationship to Christchurch Spitalfields through its scale, materials and detailing, thus providing a suitable setting for the church and other surrounding Listed buildings.”

page 44 54 Brushfield Street (The Gun public house) - undesignated heritage asset

224 Whilst The Gun is of a similar era as the other market-fronting buildings at the site, it is possible that it pre-dates the LFWE because the original public house building has been adapted following the completion of the LFWE. Photographic evidence is available to demonstrate that The Gun was originally a smaller-scale building which would have appeared at odds with the LFWE. An additional storey and false parapet was added to The Gun sometime after the completion of the LFWE, masking the pub building’s domestic-scale pitched roof. The height of the false parapet references that of the bank at the opposite corner plot. However, due to the lower floor-to-ceiling heights associated with what was originally ancillary residential accommodation above the pub, the proportions of the parapet are exaggerated compared to the rest of the public house building. This results in a broad area of blank brickwork at the upper part of the building. Nonetheless, these alterations pre-date the designation of the Conservation Area, and are part of the area’s intrinsic townscape character. In this context it is noted that the colour, scale, texture and material palette of the building are sympathetic to the LFWE and that The Gun makes a positive townscape contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.

99-101 Commercial Street (the bank) - undesignated heritage asset

225 It is understood that the bank building was completed very soon after the LFWE. The building appears to have been purpose built, to a well established design, by a commercial architect of the day. The architecture may be described as sound, rather than significant in its own right, but the building is of value to the townscape and, whilst not specifically identified within the Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal, the building makes a positive townscape contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. Similarly to The Gun, it is noted that the colour, scale, texture and material palette of the building is sympathetic to the LFWE, and the bank building has a good relationship to surrounding heritage assets.

White’s Row multi-storey car park

226 The multi-storey car park at White’s Row dates to the 1960s. Whilst it also falls within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area it has not been identified as a positive contributor to it. The Council’s Character Appraisal states: “The multi-storey car park next to the Fruit and Wool exchange is a gap site suitable for development; nevertheless the current building is at an appropriate scale [between four and five-storeys] and in itself forms an important transition between this Conservation Area and the Wentworth Street Conservation Area.” It is noted that within its initial comments on the application English Heritage stated that it would welcome the demolition of the multi-storey car park, which is harmful to the setting of a range of heritage assets including Christ Church Spitalfields, 5 White’s Row and the Artillery Passage Conservation Area.

Assessment of heritage impact

227 In line with the policy context set out at the start of this section, the applicant has undertaken an assessment of the significance of LFWE, The Gun, the bank (undesignated heritage assets) and the multi-storey car park, and an assessment of the effect of their loss and subsequent replacement on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, Artillery Passage Conservation Area, Wentworth Street Conservation Area, Christ Church Spitalfields, 5 White’s Row and 52 Brushfield Street. This assessment has been prepared in response to former national guidance Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5), which has since been replaced by the NPPF. Nevertheless, the principles of the assessment remain relevant, and were prepared in the context of the draft NPPF.

228 In summary, the applicant’s assessment concludes:

 The undesignated heritage assets at the site are of limited significance;

page 45  The principles of any significance could, in any event, be taken forward as part of a replacement building – e.g. materials, proportions, height etc;  The undesignated heritage assets make a limited contribution to the significance of the designated heritage assets;  The impact of the loss of the undesignated heritage assets on the significance of the designated heritage assets is less than ‘substantial harm’; and,  Policy HE9.4 of PPS5 should apply, but for completeness the proposals have also been tested against policy HE9.2 (a more stringent policy test).

229 As discussed in the response to consultation section of this report, English Heritage has objected to the demolition of The Gun and the bank, and expressed concern with regard to the extent of demolition of the LFWE. English Heritage has stated that these buildings are all positive contributors to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and that the more stringent PPS5 Policy HE9.2 should apply to the proposed demolition of these buildings. English Heritage’s statement that this policy should apply indicates that the organisation believes the scheme would result in substantial harm or total loss of significance.

230 As discussed above, the PPS5 policies are no longer in effect, however, in the interests of a rigorous assessment of the proposed extent of demolition, and in the spirit of the NPPF which promotes collaborative planning and consideration of all available evidence and expertise, officers have applied the NPPF equivalent of the former HE9.2 test sought by English Heritage, which is normally reserved for considering the loss of designated heritage assets. The test is as follows:

231 “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:  the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and  no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and  conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and  the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”

232 In considering the loss of the on-site Conservation Area buildings, and the impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and settings of nearby Listed Buildings, the following substantial public benefits are relevant:

 Economic benefits (local and regional) (including: support of CAZ function which is the driving force behind London’s economic well-being; an uplift of approximately 2,300 job opportunities at the site; and, short and longer-term local employment and training opportunities) as discussed in the Employment section of this report;

 Social benefits (including: promotion of equal opportunities through employment and training obligations to respond to local skills gaps; and, removal of barriers to access and inclusion at the site to enhance local employment options for disabled people), as discussed in the Employment and Inclusive design sections of this report; and,

 Environmental benefits (including: delivery of a more energy efficient and sustainable building; improvements to public access and public realm, including new public spaces; removal of existing car park which is harmful to the character of the Conservation Area and a

page 46 focus for antisocial behaviour; and, increased vibrancy and activity to promote local safety and security), as discussed in the Design and Sustainable development sections of this report.

Loss of on-site Conservation Area buildings (undesignated heritage assets)

Extent of demolition of LFWE

233 Whilst not Listed or Locally Listed, the LFWE is identified within the Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal as making a positive contribution to the character of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area. English Heritage and others have raised concerns with respect to the extent of the LFWE that is proposed to be demolished. Demolition of the LFWE was also identified within the Council’s reasons for refusal.

234 The Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal makes clear that the positive contribution of the LFWE lies in its sympathetic relationship to Christchurch Spitalfields through its scale, materials and detailing. Representations from English Heritage have also highlighted that the building’s relationship with Spitalfields Market opposite, is also significant. Given that Christ Church Spitalfields is best appreciated in the view east along Brushfield Street (as identified by the Council’s Conservation Area Character Appraisal), and that the Brushfield Street elevation directly fronts the market, the rationale for the retention of the Brushfield Street facade of the building is clear.

235 The remaining building and elevations would be demolished to allow for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site that would provide for a rationalised large floor-plate office space. As part of pre-application meeting discussions GLA officers asked the applicant to justify why it was not retaining the LFWE building. The applicant stated, and maintains, that retention of further elements of the built fabric would compromise the ability of the site to fulfil its potential to provide large floor- plate office space, which is not only key to supporting CAZ function, but also fundamental in terms of scheme viability. In essence, the delivery of the substantial public benefits described above is entirely dependent on scheme viability, and the viability of this scheme is inextricably linked to the delivery of world class office space to the market.

236 When considering the acceptability of the proposed extent of demolition of the LFWE it is important to note the following:

 The most important elevation would be retained, and improved, through the reinstatement of the stone centre piece (which was lost as a result of modern alterations during the 1960s);  The demolition of the building behind the retained facade would allow for a comprehensive developmental response that would provide for rationalised large floor-plate office space to support CAZ function and London’s role as a world city;  The comprehensive developmental response would allow for the delivery of a building which is accessible and inclusive, more energy efficient, and more sustainable; and,  The comprehensive developmental response would allow for the creation of north-south permeability.

Loss of The Gun and the bank

237 In response to public consultation, and representations provided by English Heritage and the Mayor (detailed within the response to consultation section of this report), the applicant has sought to demonstrate why demolition of The Gun and the bank is necessary in order to deliver the scheme, and the associated substantial public benefits. In doing this the applicant has examined a number of scenarios from retaining the buildings themselves, to simply retaining the facades. The reasons why this cannot be achieved are summarised below.

page 47 Retention of The Gun and the bank as standalone buildings for reuse/conversion:

 Reduced office floorspace and failure to fulfil the potential of the site to provide a large rationalised floor-plate to deliver high quality office space that would support London’s economic development and role as a world city (impacting viability and employment density);  External design compromises resulting from the requirement for the new building to wrap round behind The Gun and the bank at prominent street corners (impacting design);  Potential of afore mentioned design compromises to undermine the architectural integrity of the new building, and to suppress the identity and presence of the new commercial uses (impacting marketability and viability); and,  Challenges and expense of making the retained buildings energy efficient and accessible (impacting viability, sustainability and inclusive access).

Retention of the facade and floor levels of The Gun and the bank:

 A significant mismatch in floor levels between LFWE and The Gun (2-floors), and LFWE and the bank (1-floor) would result in compromises to the provision a large high quality, rationalised, office floor-plate to support London’s economic development and role as a world city (impacting viability and employment density); and,  The provision of steps/steep ramp would be required to allow internal movement between buildings impacting on the amount of useable office floorspace and raising challenges in terms of disabled access in some areas (impacting viability, employment density and inclusive access).

Retention of only the facade of The Gun and the bank:

 External appearance and internal quality would be adversely affected by a significant mismatch between standardised floor levels and window openings on the retained pub and bank facades resulting in a compromised workspace that would fail to fulfil its potential to support London’s economic development and role as a world city role (impacting design, viability and employment density); and,  Potential adverse impact on the visual solidarity of the development through a more extensive facade retention approach (impacting design).

Demolition of multi-storey car park

238 In heritage terms, no objections have been raised with respect to the demolition of the multi- storey car park, which is identified by the Council as a redevelopment opportunity site within the Conservation Area. Having had regard to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal, and advice from English Heritage (expressed in paragraph 226) which states the building is harmful to the setting of a range of heritage assets, officers welcome the removal of this building which would be beneficial to the Conservation Area.

Loss of Conservation Area buildings conclusion

239 Having regard to the above factors, and weighing in the substantial public benefits of the scheme, officers are content that the loss/substantial harm caused to the undesignated heritage assets within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area as a result of this proposal would be outweighed by the substantial public benefits.

page 48 Impact on Conservation Area and other designated heritage assets

240 The submitted Design and Access Statement demonstrates how the design of the proposed development has evolved, following an understanding and analysis of the local context, and pre- application consultation and engagement. As discussed in paragraph 45, amended plans were submitted to respond to further comments made at the statutory consultation stage, including those made by the Mayor. The Environmental Statement includes a thorough townscape and visual amenity assessment including verified computer generated visualisations of a number of key local viewing points, identified in conjunction with the Council. The visualisations have been appropriately updated to take into account the submitted design amendments.

241 The Mayor is advised that the Council’s reasons for refusal stated that the replacement building would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and would harm the setting of neighbouring (unspecified) Listed Buildings.

242 It should be noted, however, that with respect to the overall quality of the proposed replacement building, the local assessment undertaken by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has found that “the new development is ‘well conceived’ and relates well to the historic and more modern buildings within its setting. Most importantly, the setting key views to Christ Church Spitalfields along Brushfield Street are maintained by the retention of the LFWE façade, with the upper stories to the new building being significantly set back.”

243 Furthermore, the Council’s assessment drew attention to: improvements to the townscape along Commercial Street, Crispin Street and White’s Row, improvements to permeability through the provision of the new north-south pedestrian route; the welcome removal of the multi-storey car park; the provision of new open spaces; and, proposed off-site improvements to public realm within the Conservation Area.

244 The assessment below considers the impact of the proposal in the local views identified, and the related impact on any neighbouring Listed Buildings.

Looking east along Brushfield Street (sequence of four views)

245 The important Burshfield Street elevation of the LFWE remains as a key part of the setting to Christ Church Spitalfields (Grade I). The reinstatement of the stone centrepiece and setback of upper floors on the LFWE represent a marked improvement over the existing situation (where later additions to the top of the building are clearly visible). The loss of The Gun is only perceptible from the most easterly viewing point, but is, nevertheless, regrettable. It is noted, however, that the (revised) rhythm of fenestration/solid to void on the portion of the building that would replace The Gun responds well to the surrounding townscape. The careful choice of colour, scale, texture and material palette of the replacement corner building is also acknowledged, and is crucial to conserving the key townscape components of the setting to 52 Brushfield Street (Grade II) in this view. The white stone elements of the replacement building also help to provide an affiliation with those on the retained LFWE elevation, and respond favourably to the palette of Christ Church Spitalfields.

246 Officers are of the opinion that across these views the proposal would have a neutral impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; and, would not harm the setting of the Grade I Listed Christ Church Spitalfields or, the Grade II Listed 52 Brushfield Street.

Looking east along Artillery Lane

247 The proposal would replace the existing multi-storey car park (which currently terminates this view) with a building of simple contemporary architecture and detailing, stepping down in scale to

page 49 address White’s Row. The response is sensitive to its context, and will be enhanced further by a public space activated by retail/restaurant uses.

248 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would result in: a beneficial impact on the setting of Listed Buildings along Artillery Passage/Artillery Lane, including 56 Artillery Lane (Grade I); a beneficial impact on the setting of the Artillery Passage Conservation Area; and, a beneficial impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area.

Looking north along Bell Lane

249 The proposal would replace the existing multi-storey car park (which currently dominates this view) with a building of simple contemporary architecture and detailing, stepping down in scale to address White’s Row and Crispin Street.

250 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would result in a beneficial impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; and, the Artillery Passage Conservation Area.

Looking north along Commercial Street

251 In this view the proposed development would remove the multi-storey car park and provide a more clearly defined built frontage onto Commercial Street. Whilst the massing of the proposed building would represent a noticeable increase over the existing situation, it is noted that the building steps down at the southeast corner to sensitively address the junction at White’s Row, Toynbee Street and Commercial Street, and that the proposal would improve the legibility and coherence of the streetscape along this part of Commercial Street.

252 Officers are of the opinion that in these views the proposal would have a minor beneficial impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and Wentworth Street Conservation Area. No Listed Buildings are visible in this view.

Fashion Street junction with Commercial Street, looking west

253 The proposal would replace the existing multi-storey car park (which currently dominates this view) with a building of simple contemporary architecture and detailing, providing a firm built edge, and stepping down in scale to address White’s Row (including 5 White’s Row [Grade II]), Toynbee Street and Commercial Street.

254 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would result in a major beneficial impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and the setting of 5 White’s Row (Grade II).

Christ Church Spitalfields steps, looking west

255 In this view the proposal would alter the setting of Spitalfields Market (Grade II), and the immediate foreground setting of Christ Church Spitalfields (Grade I), through the removal of the existing bank building, and a setback two-storey element on the LFWE (representing a one to two- storey increase in height over the existing situation). The increased scale of the LFWE would also be seen in the context of the recent Nido Tower development at Frying Pan Alley, which features in the background setting, to the left of this view. Whilst the setback roof element of the proposal would extend further and higher in this view than that of the existing LFWE, it is noted that the massing steps down to address the Grade II Listed Spitalfields Market, helping to minimise the impact in this respect.

page 50 256 The loss of the bank building in this view is regrettable, particularly given the qualities identified in paragraph 225 above. Nevertheless, it is noted that the replacement building is of high design quality and would provide a rhythm of fenestration/solid to void, that would respond well to the surrounding townscape. In other respects it is also noted that the careful choice of colour, scale, texture and material palette of the new building would maintain the essence of the bank’s primary townscape attributes.

257 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would not harm the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; the setting of Spitalfields Market (Grade II); or, the setting of Christ Church Spitalfields (Grade I).

Looking south along Commercial Street

258 In this view the proposal would alter the setting of Spitalfields Market (Grade II) in the foreground through the removal of the existing bank building, and a setback two-storey element on the LFWE (representing a two-storey increase in height over the existing situation). It is also noted that the removal of the multi-storey car park, and the proposed tree planting, would represent minor background improvements in this view.

259 The loss of the bank building in this view is regrettable, however, as discussed in paragraph 256 above, it is recognised that the careful choice of colour, scale, texture and material palette of the new building would maintain the essence of the bank’s primary townscape attributes.

260 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would not harm the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; or, the setting of Spitalfields Market (Grade II).

View from Spitalfields Market entrance, looking south

261 In this view the reinstatement of the stone centrepiece and treatment of the upper floors on the LFWE represents a marked improvement over the existing situation (where later additions to the top of the LFWE detract from the character of the building).

262 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would result in a beneficial impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and the setting of Spitalfields Market (Grade II).

Brushfield Street junction with Crispin Street, looking south

263 In this position two corner buildings at the Brushfield Street junction (The Gun and 52 Brushfield Street [Grade II]) frame the view down Crispin Street. The Nido Tower at Frying Pan Alley features prominently in the backdrop. The proposal would alter the immediate setting of 52 Brushfield Street (Grade II) through the removal of the existing The Gun building, and, to a lesser extent, as a result of the setback two-storey element on the LFWE.

264 Given its contribution in townscape terms, the loss of The Gun in this view is regrettable. Nevertheless, it is noted that the replacement building would be of high design quality, offer improved proportions, and provide a rhythm of fenestration/solid to void that would respond well to the surrounding townscape. The chamfered corner and white stone detailing are also important elements of the new building that would recall something of the essence of The Gun in townscape terms, whilst allowing for the benefits of a comprehensive development solution.

265 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would not harm the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; or, the setting of 52 Brushfield Street (Grade II).

page 51 Looking west along Fashion Street

266 From this position the proposal would feature in the background of a view terminated by large-scale office development on the west side of Bishopsgate.

267 Officers are of the opinion that in this view the proposal would result in a negligible impact on the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and the setting of 16-48 Fashion Street (Grade II).

Impact on Conservation Area and other designated heritage assets conclusion

268 Based on an assessment of the visualisations provided, it is evident that the scheme would deliver a number of benefits to the character of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, the adjacent Artillery Passage Conservation Area, and the setting of neighbouring Listed Buildings. Whilst the proposal would result in changes to the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, and to the settings of various neighbouring heritage assets, these changes would not result in harm. Therefore, having considered the impact of the proposal, and representations from English Heritage, officers are satisfied that the impact of the development on neighbouring designated heritage assets would be acceptable, particularly, given the substantial public benefits of the scheme.

Loss of private service road/Duval Street (formerly Dorset Street)

269 As discussed in the response to consultation section of this report, English Heritage and others have raised concerns with respect to the removal of the private service road (Duval Street) which currently separates the LFWE and the multi-storey car park. It is also noted that the Council identifies “an inappropriate design approach that eliminates the divisions between separate buildings within the urban block” within the reasons for refusal.

270 Within its representations, English Heritage identifies Duval Street (formerly Dorset Street) as of historic significance given its notoriety as “The Worst Street in London”, and the site of a ‘Jack the Ripper’ murder. The Council’s committee report (6 March 2012) notes that the character of Duval Street was significantly changed by the assembly of two large development plots either side (LFWE built in 1929, and the multi-storey car park built during the 1960s). The Council also note that Duval Street is now a private service road, not adopted by the Council, and not generally used as a public route. Given the significant changes the character and nature of this route, and the fact it is not identified as being of significance within the Council’s Character Appraisal for the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, officers are content that the loss of the private service road is acceptable in heritage terms. The urban design considerations associated with the loss of the service road have been considered in paragraph 202 above.

Reasonable steps to ensure new development will proceed

271 In line with paragraph 136 of the NPPF, which seeks to ensure that local planning authorities do not permit the loss of heritage assets without reasonable assurance that the associated development will proceed after the loss has occurred, officers have recommended a planning condition which requires a construction contract for completion of the development to be provided to the local planning authority prior to demolition. The condition also ensures that works will be carried out without interruption, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Heritage conclusion

272 The proposed development is of high design quality, and responds well to both the historic and modern buildings within its setting. The extent of demolition of the LFWE is acceptable. The loss of The Gun and the bank buildings is regrettable, but it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the

page 52 successful delivery of this scheme, and the associated substantial public benefits, is dependant on a comprehensive development solution. Whilst the development would not cause harm to the Conservation Area or other surrounding heritage assets, it would result in substantial harm to/loss of undesignated heritage assets at the site itself. Nevertheless, this harm is outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the development, and on this basis officers are content that the proposed demolition of Conservation Area buildings, in the context of the scheme for redeveloping this site, is acceptable on balance.

273 The application is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 2.11, 7.8 and 7.9; Core Strategy policies SO22 and SP10; saved UDP policies DEV8 and DEV28; Policy CP50, CON2, CON5, CFR1 and CFR12 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007; and, draft Policy DM27 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD. Inclusive design

274 Chapter 6 of the NPPF states that “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”

275 London Plan Policy 7.2 requires that all future development meets the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and that the design process has considered how everyone, including disabled and Deaf people, older people, children and young people, will be able to use the places and spaces that are proposed. London Plan Policy 4.12 seeks to improve employment opportunities for Londoners by removing barriers to employment. Also relevant are local polices: DEV1 of the saved UDP policies; DEV3 and DEV24 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft policy DM23 within the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

276 The applicant has set out its approach to access and inclusion within the design and access statement, and has provided drawings demonstrating layouts and circulation spaces including internal and external wheelchair accessible routes, Blue Badge parking, wheelchair accessible WCs, refuge spaces and fire lifts. The applicant has demonstrated that disabled people could access each of the retail and office units safely, and has carefully manage level changes at the south of the site to ensure the proposed pavilion area and open space is inclusive and provides full wheelchair access to the street. Officers particularly welcome the resolution of level changes between the Brushfield Street and the LFWE ground floor through the provision of at-grade access, which is a significant improvement over the existing stepped threshold. The submitted revised plans clarify that the north-south route would be genuinely intuitive and inclusive wheelchair users, and whilst the ramp gradients indicated on submitted plans are wholly acceptable, in line with local access advice, details of finished floor levels for the public routes and open spaces will be secured by condition to ensure levels are managed in a way which would allow the change in gradient to be traversed as gradually as possible.

Inclusive design conclusion

277 The development would greatly improve the accessibility of the built form and associated public realm in this part of Spitalfields, helping to remove physical barriers to job opportunities at this site, and to promote inclusive access to the new ground floor uses proposed. The application accords with the NPPF; London Plan polices 4.12 and 7.2; saved UDP Policy DEV1; policies DEV3 and DEV24 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft policy DM23 within the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

page 53 Sustainable Development

278 Chapter 10 of the NPPF states that “Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”

279 London Plan climate change policies, set out in Chapter five, collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. London Plan Policy 5.2 sets out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, London Plan Policy 5.3 ensures future developments meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, and London Plan policies 5.9-5.15 promote and support the most effective climate change adaptation measures including passive thermal regulation, urban greening, and water management.

280 Relevant polices at the local level comprise: Core Strategy policies SP04, SP05 and SP11; Saved UDP Policy DEV2; Interim Planning Guidance (2007) policies DEV5 to DEV9; and, draft policy DM29 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD, which collectively seek to promote sustainable development practices and energy efficiency.

Energy strategy

281 As previously reported to the Mayor, the proposed energy strategy responds to the principles of the London Plan energy hierarchy, and, whilst not complying with the 25% carbon dioxide target within London Plan Policy 5.2, was found to be acceptable.

282 The development will achieve an 11% carbon dioxide saving against 2010 Building Regulations through: energy efficiency measures (including energy efficient lighting, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, and recessed windows with high performance glazing to minimise solar gain); and, renewable energy technologies (comprising a 26.7 kW solar thermal water heating system, and a 105.4kW roof mounted solar photovoltaic array). In line with London Plan Policy 5.6, the applicant investigated the potential for incorporating a combined heat and power system (CHP). However, this was discounted due to the intermittent nature of the heat load associated with the proposed development. Officers accept this. The absence of a feasible CHP solution is the primary reason why the development cannot achieve the carbon dioxide reduction target within London Plan Policy 5.2. However, to allow for increased savings in future, the development has been designed to allow for connection to a district energy network, once suitable infrastructure comes forward within the vicinity of the site.

283 London Plan Policy 5.2 makes provision for developments to address the short fall against the strategic carbon dioxide reduction targets through a contribution towards off-site carbon dioxide reduction projects. This approach is also supported in principle by the Tower Hamlets Planning Obligations SPD. However, a specific charging mechanism is not defined within the SPD.

284 The applicant has engaged with both the Council and the GLA with respect to the potential for off-site carbon dioxide savings. Officers note that whilst the Council intends to bring forward local programmes for reducing carbon dioxide emissions (including the provision of a decentralised energy network), proposals are currently at an early stage, and a charging mechanism (based on an assigned cost per unit of carbon, per year) has not yet been defined. In the absence of an established charging mechanism, and, given the constraints of scheme viability, a financial contribution has not been sought in this instance.

page 54 285 Therefore, whist the development would not meet the 25% carbon dioxide reduction target within London Plan Policy 5.2, or the 35% reduction target within emerging local policy DM29 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD, the energy strategy accords with the principal priorities of the London Plan energy hierarchy to be lean, clean and green. Both the GLA and the Council have accepted that there is no scope for further viable carbon dioxide reductions within the scheme, and on this basis, the application is acceptable with respect to London Plan policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7; Core Strategy policies SP04, SP05 and SP11; Interim Planning Guidance (2007) policies DEV5 to DEV9; and, draft policy DM29 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Sustainable design and construction

286 As discussed in paragraph 282 above, the scheme incorporates a number of passive design (energy efficiency) measures to support the objectives of sustainable design. It is noted that the development would exceed compliance with 2010 Building Regulations, in terms of minimising carbon dioxide emissions, through these measures alone. Emerging Policy DM29 of the Managing Development DPD requires that sustainable design assessment tools are used to ensure that the development has maximised the use of climate change mitigation measures. In this case (in line with Tower Hamlets Council’s previous assessment), this policy has been interpreted as a requirement that all non-residential developments should achieve a ‘BREEAM Excellent’ rating. It is noted that the development expects to achieve a minimum score of 74.23% against ‘BREEAM Office 2008’. This score would result in a BREEAM Excellent rating, and is supported.

287 It is noted that a local objection was raised stating that refurbishment of the existing buildings would represent a more sustainable approach to rejuvenating this site. Officers are of the view that, whilst such an approach would have merits in environmental terms, it would fail to deliver on the key strategic objectives outlined within the employment section of this report. Having regard to the definition of sustainable development within the NPPF (summarised within paragraph 54 above), officers are satisfied that a comprehensive approach to redeveloping this site constitutes sustainable development.

Urban greening and biodiversity

288 London Plan Policy 5.10 promotes urban greening, such as new planting in the public realm and multifunctional green infrastructure, in order to contribute to the adaptation to, and reduction of, the effects of climate change. Within the CAZ this policy seeks to increase the amount of surface area greened by at least five per cent by 2030. London Plan Policy 5.11 seeks to ensure that major development proposals are designed to include roof, wall and site planting, especially green roofs and walls where feasible. London Plan Policy 7.19 seeks to ensure that wherever possible, development proposals make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity. London Plan Policy 7.21 seeks to ensure that existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’. At the local level Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP04 seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity value through the design of open space and buildings and ensuring development protects and enhances areas of biodiversity value in order to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. Local Policy SP12 supports these principles, and seeks to ensure that places have a range and mix of high-quality, publicly accessible green spaces that promote biodiversity, health and well-being. Also relevant is Policy CP31 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance and draft policy DM11 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

289 The applicant has set out its urban greening proposals within the design and access statement, sustainability statement and ecology assessment report. An arboriculture impact assessment has also been submitted. The landscape proposals convey the intention to remove all the existing trees around the site (including plane trees along Brushfield Street), for their replacement with alternative semi-

page 55 mature native species, on a refined alignment that would frame the proposed development and improve the views towards Christ Church Spitalfields. Whilst the loss of existing mature trees is regrettable, it is accepted that a number are in poor condition, and/or are compromised by their relationship with, and proximity to, the existing buildings at the site. The removal of the existing trees around the site is not specifically dealt with by the application or conservation area consent, and the intention to do so will be subsequently considered by Tower Hamlets Council, upon recipient of notice from the applicant that it intends to carry out works to/cut down these trees within the Conservation Area.

290 In accordance with London Plan Policy 7.21, which seeks to ensure replacement trees are carefully selected having regard to site specific environmental characteristics, the applicant has expressed its intention to plant an alternative tree species along Brushfield Street (rather than a like for like replacement of plane trees). The supporting material indicates that semi-mature native trees (with slightly smaller canopies) capable of growing to full maturity without risk of harm to themselves or adjacent buildings, are expected to be chosen. The material also indicates that the proposed landscaping scheme would result in a net gain of one tree at the site. Given the environmental challenges to allowing plane trees to mature in this location (evident through the existing situation along Brushfield Street), the selection of an alternative tree species is supported. Officers also concur with the opinion that carefully considered replacement tree planting along Brushfield Street has the potential to improve views of the LFWE and Christ Church Spitalfields. The exact species of the replacement trees will be considered following detailed local discussions with Tower Hamlets Council, as part of the Conservation Area tree works approval process, and the approval of landscaping details, to be secured by condition.

291 In addition to tree planting, the applicant is also proposing to provide a number of raised beds of mixed shrub and herbaceous planting on White’s Row to soften the edge of the open space, and 1,825 sq.m. of garden roof terraces and a green roof, to be delivered on the fourth floor and roof level respectively. The green roof would include provision of a species rich sedum bed, which would help to secure a net gain for the biodiversity value of the site.

292 The Council’s biodiversity advice has found that the existing buildings may potentially offer nesting sites for Black Redstarts. Therefore, to avoid any negative impacts on nesting birds during demolition, a condition is proposed such that: if demolition is to take place during the Black Redstart nesting season (April to July inclusive), a Black Redstart survey should be undertaken immediately prior to commencement of demolition to ensure that Black Redstarts are not nesting on the buildings. If Black Redstarts are found to be nesting, demolition must not start until the young have left the nest.

293 The application accords with London Plan policies 5.10, 5.11, 7.19 and 7.21; Core Strategy Policy SP4; and, draft policy DM11 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Sustainable urban drainage

294 London Plan Policy 5.13 seeks to ensure development proposals utilise sustainable urban drainage systems unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. Relevant local policies with respect to sustainable drainage comprise Core Strategy Policy SP4; Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Policy DEV8; and, draft policy DM13 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

295 As previously reported to the Mayor, the applicant has developed a drainage strategy for the site to meet the requirements of national and regional policy, including the Mayor’s standard for sites to provide 50% attenuation of existing peak surface water flows. Officers note that surface water run- off rates for the completed development would be reduced by 50% during peak flows by means of sustainable drainage system features. These would include green roofs, flow controls (including oversized pipes) and an underground storage structure (which is also intended to be used for

page 56 rainwater harvesting). The proposals are embodied within the Sustainability Statement and Environmental Statement, accordance with which will be appropriately secured by planning condition. The application is acceptable in line with London Plan Policy 5.13; Core Strategy Policy SP4; Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Policy DEV8; and, draft policy DM13 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

Sustainable development conclusion

296 The proposed development would be of a high standard of sustainable design and construction (BREEAM Excellent), and would exceed compliance with 2010 Building Regulations, in terms of minimising carbon dioxide emissions, through energy efficiency measures alone. Whilst the energy strategy would not achieve the target carbon dioxide reductions sought by the London Plan, or the emerging Tower Hamlets Managing Development DPD, officers are content that there is no scope for further viable carbon dioxide reductions, and the energy strategy is acceptable. The development would deliver significant urban greening, biodiversity and urban drainage benefits, over the existing situation at the site. The application is, therefore, acceptable with respect to the NPPF; London Plan policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 7.19 and 7.21; Core Strategy policies SP04, SP05 and SP11; Interim Planning Guidance (2007) policies CP31 and DEV5 to DEV9; and, draft policies DM11, DM13 and DM29 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD. Environmental issues

Neighbourhood amenity

297 A core principle of the NPPF is to “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. London Plan Policy 7.6 states that the design of new buildings should “not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings”.

298 At the local level, saved policy DEV2 of the Tower Hamlets UDP seeks to protect the amenity of residential occupiers, and to ensure that adjoining buildings are not adversely affected through loss of privacy or detrimental impact on daylight or sunlight conditions. Saved UDP Policy DEV50; Core Strategy policies SP03 and SP10; policies DEV1 and DEV10 of Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft Policy DM25 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD are also relevant.

Neighbourhood amenity context

299 As discussed in the site description, the site lies in a highly urban location, surrounded by a mix of commercial activity, including night time uses such as public houses, bars and restaurants. There is also residential accommodation close to the site, the nearest of which is located at: 50, 52, 53-59, and 67-77 Brushfield Street; 2-8, 5, and 11-12 White’s Row; and, 45, 46 and 50 Crispin Street.

300 The main impacts on residential amenity that need to be considered in this case are: noise and disturbance; impact of the proposed development in terms of daylight/sunlight; loss of privacy; and, light pollution. These issues have previously been considered in detail by the Council, in conjunction with relevant expert advice, and the impact of the development has been found to be acceptable. Officers note that issues with respect to residential amenity are not identified within the Council’s reasons for refusal, notwithstanding this, the Mayor is provided with a summary of the Council’s residential amenity assessment below, which officers consider adequately address the issues.

page 57 Noise and disturbance

301 The proposals include a substantial element of ground floor retail activity including restaurants, cafes and a replacement public house. Whilst these uses are concentrated on the Brushfield Street frontage, the development does include a restaurant on the southwest corner of the plot, adjacent to the new public space at White’s Row.

302 Whilst the additional activity is supported in terms of its role in supporting the vibrancy of Spitalfields, representations from local residents have highlighted the potential for late evening noise and disturbance associated with these active uses. The Council has considered that the most appropriate way to manage such issues is through the control the opening hours for ground floor retail, cafe and restaurant outlets, in order to protect residential amenity. An appropriate condition is recommended accordingly.

303 The Council has also identified the potential for external plant and machinery (such as mechanical ventilation and/or air conditioning plant) to give rise to noise and vibration impacts, and this issue is considered in detail in the submitted Environmental Statement. It is noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Team have recommended a condition to control maximum noise emissions from external plant in order to acceptably mitigate this issue. An appropriate condition is recommended accordingly.

Daylight and sunlight

304 Chapter 14 of the submitted Environmental Statement assesses the impact of the proposed building on daylight and sunlight levels for nearby properties. The assessment notes the urban setting, and the fact that the site is already occupied by a five-storey commercial building (LFWE) and a four- storey car park, which already impact on their neighbours (particularly along White’s Row) due to the scale and proximity of development.

305 The submitted Environmental Statement considers the proposals potential impacts with respect to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing at residential properties surrounding the site. The assessment methodology has considered relevant policies and guidance at the national, regional and local levels, and has been informed by Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines. Relevant BRE advice states that quantitative guidelines should be interpreted flexibly, and should take into account the context of a site and its surroundings.

306 The assessment of surrounding receptors finds that the circumstances of the site, discussed above, result in baseline conditions of relatively low daylight and sunlight levels. Therefore, the daylight and sunlight assessment takes into account both absolute effects, and the relative change against existing circumstances.

307 With respect to daylight, all but four of the surrounding properties assessed would meet BRE guideline recommendations in terms of the level of change, i.e. not exceeding a 20% reduction in vertical sky component levels. With respect to the four properties which contain windows not meeting BRE guidelines, it is generally the case that the reductions in vertical sky component would only go fractionally beyond the recommended 20% level of change.

308 With respect to sunlight, it is also the case that the majority of the surrounding residential windows would meet BRE guideline recommendations. Of the residential windows which do not meet the guidelines, many do so due to slight reductions in winter levels of sunlight, whilst retaining good levels of sunlight (in excess of guidelines) in terms of their total throughout the year. Nevertheless, there are a number of instances where certain windows would experience a reduction of summer sunlight that would go slightly beyond guideline recommendations. However, many of these instances

page 58 relate to rooms which are likely to be used as bedrooms, and therefore, not considered as sensitive with respect to sunlight levels.

309 The permanent overshadowing analysis of the proposed public space at the southwest corner of the site demonstrates that the area would be very well lit, meeting the BRE guideline ‘Ideal’ recommendations.

310 The Environmental Statement has been subject to an independent review by the Council’s consultants, and has been updated as part of the submission of revised plans in January 2012, to respond to subsequent requests for clarification. The Council considered that the proposed development has been carefully designed, taking account of its particularly urban setting, and the constraints associated with this context in terms of daylight and sunlight amenity. Therefore, whilst the development would not meet BRE guideline standards in all cases, on balance, the Council has found that the proposed development would meet the objectives of saved UDP Policy DEV2; Policy DEV1 of Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft Policy DM25 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD, and GLA officers concur with this view.

Overlooking and outlook

311 The local policy context set out at the start of this section indicates that privacy should be safeguarded by maintaining a separation of 18 metres between facing windows. Whilst this standard is normally applied with respect to the interface between residential development, the principles of this separation remain relevant with respect to this proposal.

312 In the majority of cases the proposed development would not result in facing windows closer than 18 metres to the nearest residential property. However, at the northern part of Crispin Street, and the eastern part of White’s Row, face to face separation would be 11 metres and 9 metres respectively. It should, nevertheless, be noted that this would be no worse than the existing situation, as the elevations of the new building have been designed to follow the building line of The Gun, and rear elevation of the multi-storey car park, in these areas.

313 The Council has found that the use characteristics associated with the principal office function of the new building would be likely to result in few, if any, issues of direct overlooking for nearby residential development. The Council also considered that it would be inappropriate in urban design terms to set all elevations back to meet the 18 metre width of separation in all cases. On this basis the Council has found that, on balance, the proposed development would meet the objectives of saved UDP Policy DEV2; Policy DEV1 of Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft Policy DM25 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD, and GLA officers concur with this view.

Light spill

314 In response to requests from Council officers, the applicant has carried out a light spill assessment, which was included as an addendum to the Environmental Statement and submitted with revised plans in January 2012. The assessment is intended to determine the potential impacts of light spill from the upper floor windows of the development on adjacent residential properties. The assessment tested two potential scenarios (scenario 1 with blinds drawn; and, scenario 2 without blinds drawn), under pre-curfew (before 11p.m.), and post-curfew (after 11p.m.) circumstances, in line with the Institute of Lighting Engineers’ Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (2005).

315 For both scenarios, light spill levels were found to be acceptable under pre-curfew circumstances. With respect to post curfew light spill levels (which are rated against more stringent light sensitivity) the impact was also found to be acceptable in the scenario where all office windows would have blinds drawn. However, the light spill assessment identified that, using a worst case

page 59 scenario of: full occupancy; all lights left on after dark; and, no blinds drawn, a number of residential windows would fail to meet the post-curfew standard. The highest levels of light trespass under the latter scenario would be experienced along White’s Row and Crispin Street, where residential properties are closest to the development.

316 The Council has considered it unlikely that many employees would be working post-curfew hours, and, therefore, relatively few lights within the office should be illumined after 11p.m. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to require the use of roller blinds after 11p.m. through a Window Management Protocol which will form part of the Management Strategy, to be secured by planning condition. The applicant also proposes the use of motion sensing light fittings, which would automatically switch lights off in parts of the building which are unoccupied. Furthermore, the internal light fittings installed along the perimeter of the building would be dimmed significantly in comparison to the normal office lighting level. Potential low level ground based up-lighters in surrounding pavements would be appropriately controlled through a public realm improvement scheme, the details of which are to be secured by way of planning obligation.

317 The above mitigation measures have been agreed with the applicant’s lighting designer and architects, and the Council considered these measures sufficient to address issues with respect to light spill. GLA officers concur with this view, and a comprehensive lighting scheme encompassing the above requirements will be established at the detailed design stage, and a planning condition securing this is proposed accordingly.

Neighbourhood amenity conclusion

318 Having considered the issues of neighbourhood amenity occurring as a result of the proposal officers are of the view that: issues of noise and disturbance would be appropriately managed through control of opening hours of ground floor uses, and a condition to control noise and vibration impacts from external plant and machinery; impacts on daylight and sunlight would be acceptable on balance; issues of overlooking and outlook would be acceptable on balance; and, issues of light spill could be appropriately controlled through the site management strategy and detailed design measures to be secured by condition. On this basis, officers are satisfied that, on balance, the application accords with the NPPF; London Plan Policy 7.6; Core Strategy policies SP03 and SP10; saved UDP policies DEV2 and DEV50; policies DEV1 and DEV10 of Interim Planning Guidance (2007); and, draft Policy DM25 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD. Transport

319 The NPPF states that “Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives… The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel.” London Plan Policy 6.1 applies these principles within the strategic approach for transport in London. Other relevant strategic transport policies in this case include: assessing effects of development on transport capacity (Policy 6.3); funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure (Policy 6.5); cycling (Policy 6.9); walking (Policy 6.10); road network capacity (Policy 6.12); parking (Policy 6.13); freight (Policy 6.14); the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations (Policy 8.2); and, Mayoral Community infrastructure levy (Policy 8.3).

320 Core Strategy Policy SP08 promotes “Work with Transport for London to ensure the capacity of the public transport network meets the demands of current population needs and future growth”, and Policy SP09 seeks to “Implement a street hierarchy that puts pedestrians first and promotes streets, both as links for movement and places in their own right…”. Further detailed policy context on transport issues is provided by the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007). Policy DEV18 of this guidance states that a travel plan will be required for all major developments, whilst Policy DEV19

page 60 states that development is required to comply with specified parking levels. In addition, Policy DEV17 states that all development is required to include adequate space for servicing and circulation, and that developments be supported by a transport assessment to identify the impacts on the transport network. Also relevant are saved UDP policies T16, T18 and T19; and, draft policies DM20, DM21, DM22 and DM23 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD.

321 Issues with respect to transport were considered to be acceptable by the Council, and are not identified within the reasons for refusal. Similarly, the Mayor has previously considered the applicant’s response to the associated strategic transport issues of the case to be acceptable. Nevertheless, a summary of the relevant transport issues is provided below.

Travel planning

322 A transport assessment has been submitted as part of the application, and this includes a draft Travel Plan Framework for the redeveloped site which will be used as the basis for the submission of individual travel plans prepared by future tenants of the development. In response to advice from Transport for London (TfL) it has been agreed with the applicant and the Council that the travel plan for the site should be secured within the section 106 legal agreement, with a delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan to be secured by way of planning condition.

Impact on transport network

323 The submitted Transport Assessment considers the potential impact of the development on the existing transport network. Having reviewed this assessment in conjunction with advice from TfL, the Council has concluded that the development would not result in an increase in trips on the surrounding highway, and that the impact of the development would be accommodated within the capacity of the existing bus network.

Parking

324 The proposed removal of the multi-storey car park at White’s Row does not raise a concern in transport/parking terms, and, in line with TfL advice, it is unlikely to impact on the capacity of the Transport for London Road Network.

325 A total of eight on-site car parking spaces are proposed, including two disabled spaces. Whilst the high public transport accessibility of the site would present opportunities for a car free development (with the exception of disabled provision), both the Council and TfL have accepted that the level of parking proposed is acceptable, given that it would not exceed maximum standards identified by London Plan Policy 6.13 and local Policy DEV19.

326 Both the Council and TfL are satisfied that suitable provision has been made for employee cycle and motorcycle parking, which will be accommodated within the basement of the development and will act to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport. Details of cycle parking provision, including the provision of changing and shower facilities for occupiers and visitors, will be secured by planning condition.

Walking

327 The Council has designed a scheme to improve Brushfield Street, with pooled funding identified from historic section 106 contributions towards public realm. As part of the development the applicant proposes to carry out its own comprehensive public realm improvements to the highway surrounding the site, which has the potential to relate favourably to the Council’s own improvement scheme. Full details of the final scope and specification for the works proposed by the applicant, and

page 61 how these will interface with the Council’s aspirations, will be secured by way of planning condition, and implemented through a section 278 legal agreement.

328 To further improve local conditions for walking, TfL sought a contribution towards improving wayfinding close to the site (through extension of the Legible London scheme) in accordance with the principles of London Plan Policy 6.10. An appropriate contribution towards sustainable transport will be secured as a planning obligation of the scheme (refer to paragraph 350 below), and the GLA is content to engage with the Council to examine opportunities for a proportion of this contribution to be directed towards local wayfinding improvements, including possible extension of the Legible London scheme.

Servicing

329 Servicing for the development would take place within a combined service yard accessed via Crispin Street. This arrangement would allow for all servicing to take place within the confines of the site. TfL supports this approach, along with the proposed location of the service yard entrance, which would ensure servicing vehicles would not enter/exit the site via Commercial Street, thus minimising impacts on the Transport for London Road Network.

330 Following the submission of additional information, the Council has stated that it is satisfied with the proposed servicing and waste arrangements, subject to controls to prevent servicing taking place during peak hours (07:00 to 10:00 and 16:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday). These, and further controls over serving recommended by Council officers (to prevent servicing activities during night time periods), will be embedded within the delivery, waste management and servicing plan, to be secured by planning condition.

331 The Council has noted that there would be a 10 metre section of footway crossing the entrance area for the service yard, and that, without suitable refuge points, this may impact on the quality of the public footway. The applicant has stated that there may be opportunities to reduce the length of the effected footway at detailed design stage. Accordingly, a condition is recommended to secure detailed approval of the hard landscaping scheme for the surrounding highway. Opportunities for mitigating the impact of the service yard entrance on the public footway will be examined as part of the local approval process, before the condition is discharged.

Crossrail

332 In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, and in order to bring the project to fruition in suitably timely and economic manner, contributions will be sought from development likely to add to or create congestion on central London’s rail network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate. This will be secured through planning obligations in line with London Plan policies 6.5 and 8.2.

333 The approach for collecting contributions towards Crossrail is set out in the Mayor’s Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail SPG. The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of retail, hotel and office developments in Central London, which involve a net increase in floorspace of more than 500 sq.m. (GEA). As the proposed development falls within the Central of London Contribution Area, the proposed indicative level of charge is £137 per sq.m. for new office floorspace, £88 per sq.m. for new retail floorspace and £60 per sq.m. for new hotel floorspace.

334 The associated contribution for this development has been calculated as £2,026,716, which will be payable on commencement of development. As an incentive to promote development, if the development is commenced before 31 March 2013 there will be a 20% reduction in accordance with the Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail SPG. The contribution will be appropriately secured within the section 106 legal agreement.

page 62 Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

335 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide community infrastructure levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London that is granted planning permission on or after that date. The Mayor's CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail. London borough Councils may also introduce local CIL charges, which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Whilst Tower Hamlets Council expects to introduce a local CIL, the potential charging schedule is still under development. The Council expects to undertake public consultation on a preliminary draft CIL charging schedule in November/December 2012.

336 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three groups for the purposes of CIL charging. The rate for Tower Hamlets is £35 per square metre. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and the Council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. The applicant/Council should refer to the 2010 regulations, which are available to review here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents and the amendment to the 2011 regulations, which are available to review here: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made.

337 As discussed in the Crossrail section above, this site falls within the area where section 106 contributions for Crossrail will be sought in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.5 and associated SPG. Under these circumstances, the Mayor’s CIL charge will be treated as a credit towards the section 106 liability with respect to Crossrail. The practical effect of this will be that only the larger of the two amounts will normally be sought. As the CIL charge will not be confirmed until development is about to commence, the section 106 legal agreement will need to be worded so that, if the contribution based on the assumed CIL later proves to be incorrect, the contribution may be adjusted accordingly. For the avoidance of doubt, other contributions towards the mitigation of transport impacts may also be sought as part of the planning obligations package for the development, in accordance with relevant planning policy and legislation.

Transport conclusion

338 Having considered the relevant transport issues of the case, it is noted that: travel planning measures will be appropriately secured; impacts on the local transport network would be acceptable; levels of parking are acceptable and details of cycle parking will be secured by planning condition; works to promote walking will be secured by condition and planning obligation, and implemented through a section 278 legal agreement; servicing arrangements are acceptable subject to the proposed conditions; an appropriate Crossrail contribution will be secured by planning obligation; and, the relevant Mayoral CIL payment will be secured by planning obligation, and used as a credit towards the afore mentioned Crossrail contribution. On this basis, officers are satisfied that the application accords with the NPPF; London Plan policies 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 8.2 and 8.3; Core Strategy policies SP08 and SP09; saved UDP policies T16, T18 and T19; policies DEV12, DEV17, DE18 and DEV19 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance; and, draft policies DM20, DM21, DM22 and DM23 of the submission stage Managing Development DPD. Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations

339 The NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.”

340 At the regional level, London Plan Policy 8.2 sets out the Mayor’s priorities for planning obligations, and states: “Affordable housing; supporting the funding of Crossrail where this is

page 63 appropriate (see Policy 6.5); and other public transport improvements should be given the highest importance.”

341 In local terms, Core Strategy Policy SP13; saved UDP Policy DEV4; and, Policy IMP1 of the 2007 Interim Planning Guidance seek to negotiate planning obligations through their deliverance in kind, or through financial contributions. In addition, the Tower Hamlets Planning Obligations SPD sets out the Council’s priorities for planning obligations and the types of development for which obligations may be sought. The SPD provides charging mechanisms in some cases, but also allows a degree of flexibility in negotiating obligations to take account of development viability, the particular circumstances of the case, and any benefits that may be provided in kind.

342 Pursuant to the consideration within the previous sections of this report, and in line with the policy context set out above, the planning obligations required to appropriately mitigate the impact of this development, are set out below.

Employment skills training and enterprise

343 The proposed development would create new jobs in the office, retail and related services sectors. Employment training and enterprise is one of Tower Hamlets key priorities. The contribution generated under the Planning Obligations SPD would be £630,081, made up of £107,573 for the construction phase and £522,508 for the end user phase. The applicant has offered £700,000 towards employment, skills, training and enterprise (exceeding the standard contribution) in recognition of the displacement of existing jobs from the site pending redevelopment. The Council has also negotiated a wholly separate £500,000 contribution towards setting up an Employment and Skills Centre.

344 In addition to the financial contributions discussed above, the Council has also negotiated the provision of significantly subsidised floorspace for an employment skills centre, and a number of related benefits to form an employment, training and enterprise strategy (discussed in the employment section of this report) which will be secured through the section 106 legal agreement, and as a separate legal agreement between the applicant and the occupier of the development.

Affordable housing

345 In line with London Plan CAZ mixed use policy, a £1,000,000 contribution to off-site affordable housing has been negotiated. As discussed in paragraph 166, the section 106 agreement will be worded so as to ensure that this contribution would be used to deliver additional affordable units within a clearly defined radius of the site, and would appropriately assist in the delivery of the affordable rent product.

Community facilities

346 The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD seeks contributions towards ‘Idea Stores’, libraries and archives, and indoor leisure facilities, as a result of the increased demand placed on such facilities from major residential and commercial development. Based on the SPG, the associated contribution for this proposal would be £31,282 towards Idea Stores, libraries and archives, and £101,147 towards indoor leisure facilities. The applicant has agreed to make these contributions accordingly.

347 It is noted that the SPD also seeks contributions towards multi-use community facilities on major developments, which may be in the form of on-site provision of space, managed by the developer, or a financial contribution towards upgrading of an existing facility in the vicinity. The SPD makes clear that contributions in this regard are intended to be negotiated on a case by case basis.

page 64 348 In this case the applicant has declined to provide community facilities directly within the development, but has made a £350,000 contribution towards multi-use community facilities in the locality of the site.

Public realm, open space and heritage

349 The Planning Obligations SPD seeks contributions towards public realm. These are based cumulatively on contributions to public open space and contributions to street scene/built environment improvements (including heritage improvements). The calculated contribution in this case would be £199,227 towards public open space, and £412,152 towards street scene/built environment. The applicant has committed to make these contributions accordingly, which will assist in the delivery of part of the Council’s Brushfield Street improvement scheme, which will comprise public realm improvements to the highway surrounding the site. Representations made to the Mayor have also highlighted local concerns with respect to a lack of public toilets in the area. Both the Council and the applicant have confirmed that, in principle, a portion of this financial obligation may be suitable for responding to this issue. Accordingly, the GLA will work with the Council to explore the potential for incorporating improvements to local public toilet facilities as part of this planning obligations package. The final scope and specification of the works will be required by way of planning condition, with implementation secured as part of a section 278 agreement between the applicant and the relevant highway authority(s).

Sustainable transport

350 The Planning Obligations SPD states that the Council will seek contributions to mitigate the impact of a growing residential and working population on the transport infrastructure serving the borough. Therefore, the Council seeks contributions towards transport infrastructure and the Smarter Travel Initiative which encourages walking and cycling as sustainable modes of transport. The standard contribution based on the proposed development would be £48,000. The applicant has committed to make this contribution accordingly.

Crossrail

351 Under the provisions of the Mayor’s Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail SPG, this development would generate a £2,026,716 contribution towards the delivery of Crossrail. The applicant has committed to making this contribution accordingly, which will be required on commencement of the development.

352 The Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail SPG allows for a 20% reduction in the total contribution if the development is commenced before 31 March 2013.

Development viability

353 In total, the applicant has offered a total of £5,437,360 in financial contributions. To support the planning obligations package the applicant has prepared a development viability appraisal. This has been independently assessed by the Council’s appointed consultants and the findings of the assessment have been made available to the GLA. Accordingly it is noted that the independent review concludes that the overall offer for planning obligations is reasonable, and represents the maximum that the scheme can afford.

354 The planning obligations discussed above will be secured by a section 106 legal agreement. Summarised heads of terms to the agreement, including non-financial commitments, are set out within the recommendation section of this report.

page 65 Mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations – conclusion

355 The planning obligations proposed are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Legal considerations

356 Under the arrangements set out in Article 7 of the Order and the powers conferred by Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Mayor is acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the purposes of determining this planning application and the connected conservation area consent.

357 Section 35 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 inserts section 2F into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a requirement that for applications the Mayor takes over, the Mayor must give the applicant and the LPA the opportunity to make oral representations at a hearing. He is also required to publish a document setting out:

 Who else may make oral representations;  The procedures to be followed at the hearing; and,  Arrangements for identifying information, which must be agreed by persons making representations

358 The details of the above our set out in the Mayors Procedure for Representation Hearings which reflects, as far as is practicable, current best practice for speaking at planning committee amongst borough councils.

359 In carrying out his duties in relation to the determination of this application, the Mayor must have regard to a number of statutory provisions. Listed below are some of the most important provisions for this application.

Statutory duties in relation to the Development Plan

360 In determining any planning application and connected application, the Mayor is required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan (which in London consists of the Borough LDF, the London Plan and Neighbourhood Plans as appropriate) so far as is material to the application and to any other material considerations. The Mayor must determine the application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a very significant material consideration.

361 Other guidance, which has been formally adopted by Tower Hamlets Council and the GLA (e.g. Supplementary Planning Guidance and Conservation Area Appraisals), will all be material considerations of some weight (where relevant). Those that are relevant to this application are detailed in this Representation Hearing report.

362 Where the Mayor takes over an application, he becomes responsible for the section 106 legal agreement, although he is required to consult the Local Planning Authority. Both the Mayor and the Borough are given powers to enforce planning obligations.

363 When determining this planning application, the Mayor is under a duty to take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the development proposal and the conflicting interests of the applicant and any third party affected by, or opposing, the application, in reaching his decision. Planning decisions on the use of land can only be taken in line with the Town

page 66 and Country Planning Acts and decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

364 The key Articles to be aware of include the following:

(a) Article 6 - Right to a fair trial: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

(b) Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(c) Article 1 of the First Protocol - Protection of property: Every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

365 It should be noted, however, that most Convention rights are not absolute and set out circumstances when an interference with a person's rights is permitted i.e. necessary to do so to give effect to the Town and Country Planning Acts and in the interests of such matters as public safety, national economic well-being and protection of health, amenity of the community etc. In this case this Representation Hearing report sets out how this application accords with the Development Plan.

366 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (“the CIL Regs”) states that a section 106 planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These are now statutory tests.

Specific duties in relation to land within Conservation Areas

367 As this application involves a connected application for conservation area consent, the Mayor is required to pay special attention to Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990 and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the Conservation Area.

Conclusion

368 As detailed above Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 requires the decision to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

369 When assessing the planning application the Mayor is required to give full consideration to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations. He is also required to consider the likely significant environmental effects of the development and be satisfied that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them, are perfectly understood.

370 In preparing this report, officers have taken into account the likely environmental impacts and effects of the development and identified appropriate mitigation action to be taken to reduce any adverse effects. In particular, careful consideration has been given to the proposed conditions and planning obligations which will have the effect of mitigating the impact of the development.

371 This report has considered the material planning issues associated with the proposed development in conjunction with all relevant national, regional and local planning policy, and has found that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of land use principle (employment, mix of uses, and retail); design (including urban design, views [strategic and local], public realm and open space, heritage, and demolition within a Conservation Area); inclusive design; sustainable

page 67 development; environmental issues (including residential amenity); transport; and, mitigating the impact of development through planning obligations.

372 Accordingly, the recommendations set out at the beginning of this report are proposed.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Graham Clements, Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 4265 email [email protected]

page 68