planning report PDU/2827/02 14 December 2011 130-134 Pennington Street, Wapping in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/11/01278 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Redevelopment of 134 - 140 Pennington Street to provide a mixed use hotel (class C1), apart- hotel (sui-generis) and retail (class A1) building with publicly accessible courtyard together with provision of vehicular and pedestrian access. The applicant The applicant is Al Mubarakia Ltd., and the architect is Dexter Moren. Strategic issues The matters raised in the previous report relating to urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport, have been addressed through submission of further information, revisions to the proposals and the use of planning conditions. The Council’s decision In this instance Tower Hamlets Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 18 July 2011 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings… outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” page 1 2 On 24 August 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2827/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 72 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 73 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 27 October 2011 Tower Hamlets Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within 20 working days of receipt of the Mayor’s stage two report, and on 5 December 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to the Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 18 December 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 At the consultation stage Tower Hamlets Council was advised that the application did not fully comply with the London Plan; but that the following possible remedies could address these deficiencies: Urban design: The applicant should address the comments made in the urban design section of this report relating to the scale and bulk of the massing and the impact on the heritage setting of the development. Inclusive access: Further information on the proposed ‘adaptations’, accessibility of the suites and availability of blue badge parking is required. In addition, the pedestrian ramp requires further detailed consideration to ensure the development is meeting the highest level of accessibility. Sustainable development: The applicant should confirm the reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions at each tier of the hierarchy as well as the overall savings, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum and percentages, relative to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development need to be addressed. The applicant should also seek to introduce further urban greening, and agree to a planning condition to secure any proposed sustainable drainage solutions. Transport: Further information is required in relation to the location of and access to cycle parking, coach parking and servicing impacts on the bus and highway networks, trip distribution. Transport for London would also welcome further discussion with regard to the section 106 mitigation measures towards cycle and walking improvements, bus and highway networks. 6 Paragraphs 7 to 17 below, detail how these issues have been addressed. Urban design page 2 7 Following the stage one report and comments from Tower Hamlets Council and English Heritage, the applicant has submitted revisions to reduce the impact of the massing of the proposal. The changes are welcome and are as follows: Redesign of Chigwell Hill Elevation to vertically orientate hotel windows; Refuse store ventilation louvers redesigned to align with the hotel windows above; Entrance canopy raised to double height; Roof plant area has been significantly reduced; Plant screen revised to be open at the base for ventilation allowing closer proximity to plant equipment; Retail entrance repositioned to be accessed from The Highway & associated retail level change; Gym terrace and associated balustrade removed; Curtain walling glazing revised to reflect rhythm of hotel windows below; Additional planters added to stepped seating within the piazza; Street access removed for aparthotel duplex units fronting Pennington Street; Aparthotel columns on Pennington Street revised from concrete to dark brown terracotta cladding; Low concrete wall on Pennington Street revised to terracotta baguettes. 8 In response to the comments relating to the use of materials and the impact that this had on the bulk of the proposal, the applicant has commented that the intention is to create a solid brick building in the context of local character and in keeping with Tobacco Dock and it is noted that this approach is supported in the Tower Hamlets committee report. As such, the impact on the heritage setting of the development is acceptable and a condition has also been applied to allow Tower Hamlets Council to test the materials on site prior to construction. Further detail has also been provided in response to the proposed glass link bridge and this element has now been assessed as acceptable. The applicant has also demonstrated that the concerns raised previously relating to privacy and active frontages have been addressed. 9 As such, all urban design issues have now been resolved. Inclusive access 10 At the previous stage, further information was requested in relation to the level of ‘adaptations’ to ensure accessibility of the suites and the availability of blue badge parking. The applicant has since confirmed that it is proposed to provide 11 fully accessible bedrooms (5% of provision), with a further 12 suites capable of adapation (5% adaptable). This has been secured by a planning condition and meets the London Plan requirement for 10% of the bedrooms to be wheelchair accessible. The applicant has also noted that one disabled parking space will be provided on site, located adjacent to the main entrance on The Highway and this is welcome. 11 In relation to the proposed ramp as part of the public piazza, the applicant has provided further information to demonstrate that an accessible route is provided for wheelchair users through the building, with alternative lift access. It has stressed that this is a proposed landscape feature rather than an accessibility measure, as it is not possible to create a fully Part M of Building Regulations compliant accessible ramp in this location due to the two metre level change. Tower Hamlets Council has also attached a planning condition to ensure that a full access management strategy is submitted to deal with issues such as directional signage, clear legibility of alternative accessible routes through the building for public, signage and wayfinding inside the building. 12 However, concern remains at the proposed use of slanted steps alongside the ramp and although the applicant has included planters to better separate the steps from the ramp, it is not clear that this is a fully inclusive and safe solution for a new area of public realm. In response to page 3 these concerns, the following condition has been attached to the draft decision notice to allow an opportunity to review the use of slanted steps at the detailed design stage: “Condition 6: Notwithstanding hereby approved, a full detail design of the public piazza and the access ramp and its relationship with the steps shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to superstructure works commencing on site. Such detailed design should ensure the space is easy and safe to be used by all. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.” 13 As such, all matters relating to accessibility and inclusion have been adequately addressed. Sustainable development 14 Following comments made in the stage I report, further information relating to the Energy Strategy has been submitted in relation to the energy efficiency standards.