creative industries quarter report by z2HY0SaR

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 21

									                                                        planning report PDU/2210a/02
                                                                               23 March 2011

          Creative Industries Quarter, 62 – 80 Abbey
                                       Road, Barking
         London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London
                                     Borough of Barking & Dagenham)
                                              planning application no. 10/01038/FUL


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
Full application for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site, including
erection of three buildings ranging in height from eight to fifteen storeys, comprising 269
residential units, and 1,677 sq.m. commercial floorspace, together with associated landscaping
and parking.

The applicant
The applicant is By Development Ltd, and the architect is Cartwright Pickard Architects.

Strategic issues
Strategic issues relating to housing, children’s play space, design, inclusive design and
transport, have all been satisfactorily addressed, and the application is therefore in accordance
with strategic planning policy.

The Development Corporation’s decision
In this instance the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has resolved to agree
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 the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation 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.

Context
1    On 8 December 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Barking &
Dagenham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
(LTGDC) notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop


                                                                                           page 1
the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under the following
Categories of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

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

   1B: “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”.

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

2       On 12 January 2011 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2210a/01, and
subsequently advised the Corporation that the application did not comply with the London
Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 74 of the above-mentioned report; but that the
possible remedies set out in paragraph 75 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. On 10 March 2011 the
LTGDC decided that it was minded to grant planning permission 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, for the
revised application, and on 11 March 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 or direct the LTGDC under Article
6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 24 March 2011 to notify the LTGDC 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 the Corporation was advised that the application did not
comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 74 of the above-mentioned
report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 75 of that report could address these
deficiencies:

     Housing: the financial appraisal of the scheme was being independently assessed to
      ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being delivered.
      The applicant was required to provide further detailed justification in support of the
      proposed housing mix, and if no such justification could be provided, the mix should be
      reconfigured to provide additional social rented family accommodation. In addition,
      further information was required regarding the delivery and phasing of the affordable
      housing units.
       Urban design: the applicant was requested to reconsider the location of entrances at
        ground floor, the quantum of parking within the main square, and produce a detailed
        landscaping and public realm strategy for the whole site. The applicant was also
        requested to reconsider the use of render in the facade treatment.




                                                                                                page 2
      Inclusive design: the applicant was requested to identify sufficient units which could be
       easily adapted into wheelchair accessible units, and demonstrate how the requirements
       for wheelchair accessible car parking will be met, and also how it will be managed in the
       long-term.

    Children’s play space: the applicant was required to increase the provision of informal
     children’s play space throughout the development, as part of a wider landscape strategy.
     In addition, information about existing facilities, particularly for older children, was
     requested.
      Climate change: a minimum proportion of photovoltaic panels was required to be
       agreed and secured by condition.

    Transport: TfL required all transport-related conditions and obligations associated
     with the previous application for this site be retained for this revised application. In
     addition, the applicant was requested to increase the provision of disabled car parking
     and cycle parking, amend the transport assessment report and travel plan, and
     undertake a Pedestrian Environment Review System audit and a Disability
     Discrimination Act assessment of bus stops. The provision of electric vehicle charging
     points, and a delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan, should all be
     secured by condition.

Housing

6      At consultation stage the applicant was required to demonstrate that the maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing will be provided and that the delivery of affordable
housing within phase two will be adequately secured.

7       The applicant submitted detailed viability information which has been independently
assessed on behalf of the Corporation. This assessment raised concerns regarding the
applicant’s estimated build costs and sales values. Subsequently, the applicant increased its
overall s106 package in line with the recommendations of the report, and a clause has been
included within the draft s106 to recapture additional monies should sales values exceed those
predicted by the applicant. Although the proportion of affordable housing to be provided
remains at 20%, subject to the provision of grant, a proportion of the recaptured monies will be
directed towards the delivery of additional affordable housing. This is acceptable.

8      In response to concerns raised regarding the need to ensure the delivery of affordable
housing within phase two, the draft s106 requires a proportion of monies arising from the
additional sales values from phase one to go towards the delivery of affordable housing in phase
two. This will help to ensure that phase one contributes towards the delivery of affordable
housing, should phase two not proceed, and as such is acceptable.

9      The applicant amended the housing schedule to provide three additional three-bed
affordable units in response to concerns raised in the previous report regarding the provision of
affordable family accommodation. This increases the proportion of family accommodation to
15%, which is in accordance with the proportion within the permitted scheme, and as such is
considered acceptable.
10     As stated in the previous report, on balance, the housing units themselves largely
respond well to the requirements of the London Plan, the draft Housing and SPG, and the
guidelines within the Mayor’s Housing Design Guide with regards to residential quality.
However, there remained an element of concern regarding the single aspect units and whether
they would be sufficiently ventilated, particularly those facing Abbey Road. The applicant was
requested to reconsider the introduction of balconies on this frontage, to address this issue.

                                                                                         page 3
The applicant has subsequently submitted additional justification for the omission of balconies
on this elevation, in addition to information regarding ventilation. However, in considering the
application at its committee, LTGDC has included within the draft s.106 a requirement for the
applicant to provide balconies on this facade, subject to viability. This is acceptable.

Urban design
11      In response to concerns raised previously regarding the facade design, and in particular
the use of render within the scheme and its poor relationship to the brick proposed, the
applicant has amended the facades to remove this render and to complete the building in brick.
This is a welcomed amendment and adequately addresses concerns raised previously.

12      The applicant has provided additional detailed information regarding a number of issues
that were raised in the previous report regarding the location of block D, and the need to
improve interaction at ground floor, particularly along the bridge approach. This provides
background justification for the current location of block D, particularly linked to issues
surrounding the siting of the car park, level changes, and shadowing. In this context the
location of block D is acceptable. The applicant has also demonstrated that level changes along
the bridge approach limits the ability of the applicant to introduce front doors. Nevertheless,
the applicant has introduced a number of town houses along this section, which will provide
additional overlooking, but are accessed from the internal courtyard due to the level change
difficulties at this location. This addition will help to activate this section and is an adequate
response to the limitations surrounding level changes, and as such is acceptable.

13      In addition to concerns raised regarding the built form of the development, concerns
were raised in relation to the public realm and landscaping. The submitted landscape and
public realm strategy is bland and corporate in approach, with the creative square dominated
by parking, and with little consideration of the spaces being created. It is disappointing that the
applicant has not proactively engaged with GLA officers to address these concerns. However,
in response, LTGDC has included a condition within the draft grant of planning permission,
requiring the applicant to submit a revised landscape strategy, in consultation with the GLA.
This will enable continued discussions regarding the detailed design of these spaces, and as
such is acceptable.

Inclusive design
14      Concerns were raised previously with regard to wheelchair accessible housing, and
accessible car parking. The applicant has subsequently provided alternative flat layouts which
demonstrate that they will be easily adaptable, and will not require extensive internal works.
This is acceptable. With regard to the provision of accessible car parking, the applicant has
demonstrated that it is possible to provide the required number of spaces on site, but due to
constraints on the size of the underground car park, and the need to limit the number of spaces
provided in the creative square, it is not possible to initially allocate and restrict all of these for
accessible users. Alternatively, these will be managed in the long-term and implemented
according to need. Whilst it is disappointing that these spaces will not be provided from initial
scheme opening, the constraints of delivering the required level of parking are acknowledged
and the management strategy will ensure that spaces will be available if required.

Children’s play space
15     At consultation stage the applicant was required to increase the provision of informal
children’s play space throughout the development, as part of a wider landscape strategy, and
provide additional information regarding existing facilities, particularly for older children. In
response to concerns raised, the applicant has increased the provision of children’s play space at

                                                                                               page 4
the Riverside Walk, in addition to the provision of play within the communal courtyard. The
development now provides 305 sq.m. of play space, an increase of 201 sq.m. This exceeds the
required proportion of playspace, which based on the expected child population, and using the
methodology within the Mayor’s SPG ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and
Informal Recreation’, would be 270 sq.m. This is acceptable.

16      In response to specific concerns regarding the lack of play facilities elsewhere in the
development, LTGDC has included within the condition relating to the need to provide a
revised landscaping strategy, a requirement to consider additional informal play opportunities.
This is acceptable.

17     Finally, in response to the consultation report, the applicant has provided additional
information regarding existing play facilities in proximity to the site, which demonstrates that
there are adequate facilities for older children expected as part of this development.

Transport for London
18      At consultation stage, TfL requested that all of the transport-related conditions and
obligations secured for the previous application for this site, be retained for this revised
application. TfL also required an increase in both disabled and cycle parking spaces alongside
recommending the need to produce a pedestrian environment review system (PERS) and an
audit to inform whether the nearest bus stops are suitable for disabled users. TfL also
requested that electric vehicle charging points, a delivery and servicing plan, a construction
logistics plan and travel plan be secured by condition.

19      TfL welcomes the retention of the relevant transport conditions and obligations within
the draft S106 heads of terms, especially regarding the obligation on the applicant to retain the
interim public transport corridor through the site. The commitment to increase both disabled
parking spaces from six to 24, and cycle parking spaces to a minimum of 298, in line with TfL’s
cycle standards, is also supported. TfL welcomes the active provision of electric vehicle
charging points at a ration of 20% of all car parking spaces in both phases of the development
with the adaptation of further spaces for passive provision at the second phase of the
development.

20      A PERS audit has been submitted to TfL, which highlighted the need to improve
pedestrian conditions on Abbey Road. TfL therefore supports the requirement within the draft
S106 head of terms for the applicant to enter into a Section 278 agreement to widen the
footways on Abbey Road. The DDA assessment showed that the nearest bus stops located on
Gascoigne Road and St. Paul’s Road both had adequate kerb heights and sufficient space to
support disabled access, which is accepted. A condition has also been secured to develop a
travel plan prior to occupation on site, alongside an additional requirement to submit a
construction management plan and a delivery and servicing plan, which is supported.

21    In summary, TfL is now satisfied that the issues raised at consultation stage have been
adequately addressed.

Response to consultation
22      The Council undertook a consultation exercise and received one letter of support from a
neighbouring resident. In addition, a number of responses were received from statutory and
non-statutory bodies. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
raised concerns with the proposal in relation to the public real and landscaping, architecture,
residential amenity and phasing. English Heritage provided detailed comment with regard to
the impact of the development on the Granary building. In addition, the Environment Agency
and the Port of London Authority requested a number of conditions relating to flooding and

                                                                                         page 5
surface water, landscaping, remediation and contamination, use of the river for transport and
provision of life saving equipment. Issues relating to the design of the proposal, as raised by
CABE and English Heritage, have been addressed either in this report, or the Mayor’s previous
consultation report.

23     Barking and Dagenham Council considered the application on 28 February 2011 and
resolved to recommend that the LTGDC grant permission subject to conditions and Section
106 agreement.

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

Financial considerations
25     Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent
appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in
Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses
arising from an appeal.

26      Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the
Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning
authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding
whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of
established planning policy.

Conclusion
27     At consultation stage, outstanding issues were raised in relation to housing, children’s
play space, urban design, inclusive design and transport. These issues have been satisfactorily
addressed by the applicant, and consequently the application now complies with the London
Plan.




for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions
020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Sarah Considine, Principal Strategic Planner, Case Officer
020 7983 5751 email sarah.considine@london.gov.uk



                                                                                        page 6
                                                       planning report PDU/2210a/01
                                                                           12 January 2011

         Creative Industries Quarter, 62 – 80 Abbey
                                      Road, Barking
                             London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
                                (in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham)
                                             planning application no. 10/01038/FUL


Strategic planning application stage 1 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
Full application for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site, including
erection of three buildings ranging in height from eight to fifteen storeys, comprising 269
residential units, and 1,677 sq.m. commercial floorspace, together with associated landscaping
and parking.

The applicant
The applicant is Bouygues UK, and the architect is Cartwright Pickard Architects.

Strategic issues
The principle of a mixed-use residential development in this location is acceptable. However,
there are a number of serious strategic concerns raised including provision of affordable
family units and delivery of affordable housing, urban design, inclusive design,
children’s play space, and transport. It is also not currently possible to determine whether
the proposal delivers the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

Recommendation
That Barking & Dagenham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development
Corporation, be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the
reasons set out in paragraph 74, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 75 of this
report could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to
the Mayor if the Corporation resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the
Corporation resolve to grant permission.

Context
1 On 8 December 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Barking &
Dagenham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
(LTGDC), notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to

                                                                                         page 7
develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country
Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 18 January 2011 to provide
the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies
with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide
other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what
decision to make.

2     The application is referable under the following Categories of the Schedule to the Order
2008:

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

      1B: “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”.

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

3      Once the LTGDC has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it
back to the Mayor for his decision, as to whether to direct refusal or allow the Corporation to
determine it itself, unless otherwise advised. In this instance if the LTGDC resolves to refuse
permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.

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

Site description
5      The 0.9 hectare site lies to the south east of Barking town centre. The site is bounded to
the west by the River Roding and two locally listed buildings, to the south by residential
development, to the east by Abbey Road, and to the north by an industrial estate. The northern
section of the site falls within the Abbey Road Conservation Area. The majority of the site is
cleared of buildings, with only a substation and a three-storey industrial building remaining.

6       The site is not within 400 metres of any bus route, and is therefore not considered to
be within acceptable walking distance of any bus services. Barking Station is also more than
960 metres away. Therefore, the site has a low public transport accessibility level of two, on
a scale of one to six, where six is classed as excellent.

Details of the proposal
7      Bouygues UK is seeking full planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to
provide 269 residential units and 1,677 sq.m. of commercial floorspace. The development
comprises three buildings ranging in height from eight to fifteen storeys, which include flexible
creative industry/commercial/community floorspace at ground floor, and a mix of one, two
and three-bed units above. The proposal includes 4,760 sq.m. of amenity space, and basement
car parking with 61 car parking spaces, 283 cycle parking spaces, and four motorcycle spaces.
The design will enable the proposed bridge across the River Roding to land on the application
site.


                                                                                                 page 8
Case history
8       The site, together with land to the west of the current application boundary, has extant
planning permission for 218 residential units, 6,203 sq.m. commercial (B1) floorspace, 195
sq.m. of retail and restaurant floorspace, and 123 sq.m for use as a creche. The scheme was
considered by the Mayor on 14 January 2009 and 15 July 2009 (PDU ref PDU/2210/01 &
PDU/2210/02). The Mayor concluded that the scheme did not raise any outstanding strategic
issues and was content therefore for the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
to determine the case itself.

9      The current proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions with GLA officers
on 15 November 2010.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
10       The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses                    London Plan
 Employment                     London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG
 Housing                        London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and
                                 Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing
                                 Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft
 Affordable housing             London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim
                                 Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft
 Density                        London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG;
                                 Housing SPG EiP draft
 Access                         London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive
                                 environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good
                                 practice guide (ODPM)
 Urban design                   London Plan; PPS1
 Sustainable development        London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22;
                                 draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing
                                 Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change
                                 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy;
                                 Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
 River Thames/flooding          London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B
 Transport                      London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13
 Parking                        London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

11     For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
the development plan in force for the area is the Barking & Dagenham Council Core Strategy
(adopted 2010) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004). The
following are also relevant material considerations:

        The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.
        Borough Wide Development Policies and Proposals Map (considered at Examination
         in Public in 2010) stage (June 2009).
        The Barking Town Centre Area Action Plan (considered at Examination in Public in
         2010).

                                                                                           page 9
      Barking Town Centre AAP Urban Design Guidance SPD, consultation draft June
       2009.

Land use
12     The site is currently largely vacant, having been historically in industrial use. In recent
years the area has been increasingly developed for residential led, mixed-use developments.
The previous application on this site accepted the principle of a mixed-use development.

13     The application site is identified by the Council as a site suitable for a mixed-use scheme
consisting of cultural and creative industries, with an element of general office associated with,
and ancillary to, the cultural and creative users. The provision of creative industrial clusters is
also supported by London Plan Policy 3B.8.

14     The revised application includes the provision of 1,677 sq.m. of flexible ground
floorspace for creative, commercial and/or community uses. In addition, further creative use
floorspace has been delivered in the two buildings consented and delivered under the previous
application, which do not form part of this current proposal.

15      In response to the Council’s requirement to provide creative floorspace, the applicant
has agreed to market a minimum of 492 sq.m. of the total commercial floorspace to creative
industries for a period of twelve months. The applicant has argued that any further
requirement to provide creative industry floorspace would adversely impact on the overall
viability of the scheme, due to concerns over the demand for such space and its marketability.
The applicant has provided a financial appraisal in support of this. The appraisal is the subject
of an independent review, the results of which are not yet known.

16     Given the current delivery of creative industries as part of the previous permission, and
that the applicant has agreed to market a minimum proportion of floorspace in this proposal to
creative industries, subject to the results of the independent appraisal, the overall mix of uses is
considered acceptable.

Housing
17      The scheme includes 269 residential units. This is an increase of 51 residential units
permitted as part of the previous application. The mix of the current, and previous permission,
is provided below:

Current scheme



                       1-bed      2-bed     3-bed          Total         habitable rooms
       Private          105        83         28        216 (80%)           571 (80%)
       Intermediate      10        20          0         30 (11%)            80 (11%)
       Social rented     8         14          1          23 (9%)             62 (9%)
       Total            123        117        29            269                 713


Permitted scheme

                                                                                           page 10
                 1-bed      2-bed     3-bed      4-bed         Total         habitable rooms
 Private           37        101        12         0        150 (63%)           425 (66%)
 Intermediate      20        17         10         4         51 (23%)           151 (24%)
 Social rented      0         9         5          3          17 (8%)             62 (10%)
                   57        127 27 (12%) 7         (3%)                           638
 Total                                                          218
                 (26%)      (58%)
Affordable housing

18      London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable
amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use
schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount
of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an
assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should
take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15%
intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In addition,
Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than restrain
residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets should be
applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public subsidy and
other scheme requirements.

19     The corresponding policies are set out in Chapter 3 of the draft replacement London
Plan. Policy 3.13 seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and 3.12 seeks
to ensure that 60% is social housing and 40% is intermediate housing.

20     The application includes 53 affordable units, of which 23 are social rented and 30 are
intermediate (shared ownership). This represents 20% affordable housing by units and by
habitable rooms, with a tenure split of 43% social rented and 57% intermediate.

21     The overall delivery of affordable housing has reduced considerably since the previous
application, from 31% in the permitted scheme, to 20% in this current proposal. The applicant
has also stated that the delivery of 20% is on the assumption of grant availability. The applicant
has submitted viability information, which is being independently verified. The results of this
assessment are not yet known. As such, it is not currently possible to confirm whether the
proposal is providing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and therefore
whether the proposal is in accordance with London Plan Policy 3A.10. Given that the applicant
claims that the provision of 20% affordable housing is on the assumption of grant availability,
further information regarding any discussions of grant funding with the HCA is required.

22      With regard to tenure split, the applicant has argued that due to constraints on the
delivery of social rented family housing, and the overprovision of social rented housing in the
immediate area, the scheme includes a greater provision of intermediate units over social
rented. Notwithstanding the serious concern regarding the lack of social rented family housing
discussed in paragraphs 24 to 26, it is acknowledged that the current mix of intermediate and
social rented housing better reflects London Plan policy, when compared to the previous
scheme, which had a split of 25% social rent and 75% intermediate. As such, the tenure split is
considered acceptable.



                                                                                         page 11
23      The development will be brought forward in two separate phases. The first phase will
see the delivery of the majority of the private accommodation, whereas the social rent and the
intermediate units will not be constructed until phase two. The delivery of the affordable
housing is of concern. The reliance on the second phase to deliver all of the affordable housing
raises doubts over the viability of that phase, and therefore the overall delivery of affordable
housing with this scheme. Further discussions regarding this issue are required, including the
method of affordable housing delivery, the phasing timetable, and measures the LTGDC intend
to use to secure the subsequent delivery of affordable accommodation.

Mix of units

24      London Plan Policy 3A.5 encourages a full range of housing choice. This is supported
by the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which seeks to secure family
accommodation within residential schemes, particularly within the social rented sector, and
sets strategic guidance for councils in assessing their local needs. Policy 3.12 of the draft
replacement London Plan states that within affordable housing provision, priority should be
accorded to family housing. Recent guidance is also set out in the London Plan Interim
Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2010) and draft replacement London Plan
policy 3.8, which seeks to widen housing choice. Also relevant is policy 1.1C of the London
Housing Strategy, which sets a target for 42% of social rented homes to have three or more
bedrooms.

25     The housing schedule has changed significantly since the previous application. The
current scheme includes no four-bed units and only one three-bed social rented unit. Social
rented family accommodation accounts for 0.4% of the overall scheme.

26     The applicant has argued that due to the lack of available housing grant for family units,
and the proportion of social rented units in the area, no additional social rented family units
could be provided. The provision of only one social rent family unit in a scheme of 269 units is
of considerable strategic concern. The applicant should provide additional justification for not
including social rented family units, as well as detailed evidence in support of their claims
regarding the availability of grant for such units, and the existing levels of social rent family
housing in the immediate area. Without this more detailed justification, the proposal cannot be
considered acceptable in strategic planning terms.

Housing density

27      London Plan Policy 3A.3 seeks to maximise the potential of sites. Draft replacement
London Plan Policy 3.4 moves away from ‘maximise’ in favour of ‘optimise,’ having regard to
local context, design principles and public transport accessibility. The site has a public
transport accessibility level of two and its immediate setting is urban in character. The London
Plan density matrix therefore suggests a residential density of between 200 and 450 habitable
rooms per hectare.

28      The density of the scheme is 746 habitable rooms per hectare. This is considerably
above the density matrix within the London Plan. The development will provide good quality
accommodation, and has the potential to provide adequate amenity space (see paragraphs 40 to
42). With a revised landscaping strategy, it also has the potential to relate positively to, and be
well integrated with, the existing and emerging context. The future aspiration to improve
public transport links via the bridge would increase the overall public transport accessibility of
the site, and the route for this link has been safeguarded as part of this proposal. Therefore,
subject to the issues raised in relation to housing mix, play and amenity space, and public
realm, the density is considered acceptable.
                                                                                          page 12
Urban design
Scale, massing and form

29     The proposal is largely similar in height, bulk and massing as that of the previous
proposal. The proposed scheme does significantly reduce the bulk and massing of block C,
which is supported, and the tallest element of the proposal exceeds the permitted scheme by
only a metre. In this context, the scale and massing is considered acceptable.

Layout and public realm

30      The development comprises three blocks punctuated with access routes and a main
square. The main square is the developments most significant area of open space, and it is the
area most likely to be animated by people using the ground floor units. However, the area lacks
a comprehensive landscape and seating strategy, and is over dominated by car parking. It is
therefore difficult to see how this space could be used. The applicant is strongly encouraged to
improve the landscaping proposals for this area, including better consideration of exhibition
space, as well as rationalise the parking. The space should be designed so as to support and
encourage the creative industries that are accessed off of it. This requires a more innovative
approach to, for example, street furniture, lighting, and seating.

31      The bridge approach, both where it meets Abbey Road, and at the steps towards the
main square, also lacks activity at street level. Whilst the removal of the energy centre from
the bridge approach is strongly supported, the introduction of additional residential entrances,
a reconsideration of service and plant entrances, and improved landscaping and street design,
would greatly improve the street environment. In addition, the movement of block D further
south, and towards the road, could strengthen the quality of this space as a street, reduce the
disjointed nature of the building edge along this route, and reduce the impact of shadow on the
communal gardens in the afternoon.

32      The provision of public realm adjacent to the river is supported. However, there are a
number of concerns with the design and approach to this area. The location of the children’s
play space in this location results in the space being disconnected to the residential units. There
is no objection to the principle of locating play space adjacent to the river, but better
integrating play provision throughout the development, and in particular locating spaces in
closer proximity to residential entrances, would improve both the overall public realm and the
provision of children’s play (also refer to paragraphs 40 to 42 on children’s play space
provision). In addition, the area at the end of the bridge approach has been designed to provide
a turning head for service vehicles. The result of this is a large, unusable and stark piece of
urban realm taking up a large proportion of the river frontage, adjacent to residential and
commercial entrances. It is acknowledged that longer term aspirations would result in the
bridge landing at this point, but a better landscaped interim solution would improve the overall
river environment.

Appearance and materials

33      The applicant’s use of brick as opposed to white render, as in earlier iterations, is
supported and well considered, particularly in the context of the surrounding locally listed
buildings. However, the applicant’s approach to the top of the buildings raise concern, and sit
awkwardly with the overall design concept. The use of render on the upper levels, as opposed
to the continuation of brick, weakens the strength of the design and the quality of finish, and as
such should be reconsidered.

                                                                                          page 13
Housing quality

34      Policy 3.5 of the draft replacement Plan introduces a new policy on the quality and
design of housing developments. Part A of the draft policy states that housing developments
should be of the highest quality internally, externally and in relation to the wider environment.
Part C of the draft policy states that new dwellings should meet the dwelling space standards
set out in Table 3.3, have adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts.
Part E of the draft policy states that the Mayor will provide guidance on implementation of this
policy including on housing design for all tenures. The reasoned justification provides further
guidance and explanation. In particular paragraph 3.31 states that other aspects of housing
design are also important to improving the attractiveness of new homes as well as being
central to the Mayor’s wider objectives to improve the quality of life of Londoner’s
environment.

35     To address these, the Mayor has produced a new draft Housing SPG on the
implementation of Policy 3.5 for all housing tenures, drawing on his interim Housing Design
Guide (EiP version). Paragraph 3.33 highlights what the proposed SPG would cover, in terms
of requirements for individual dwellings. This draft was produced for the London Plan
examination in public.

36      Notwithstanding the comments made elsewhere in this report regarding ground floor
treatment, public realm, wheelchair accessible housing, and children’s play space, an assessment
of this scheme against these standards indicates that, on balance, the housing units themselves
largely respond well to the requirements. However, there remains an element of concern
regarding the single aspect units and whether they would be sufficiently ventilated, particularly
those facing Abbey Road. The applicant should reconsider the introduction of balconies on this
frontage, utilising appropriate design solutions to any concerns regarding overlooking, which
would help to address this issue.

Inclusive design
37      London Plan Policy 4B.5 and draft replacement London Plan Policy 7.2 require all
future development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, and requires
design and access statements submitted with planning applications to explain how the
principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been
integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion will be managed and maintained.
London Plan Policy 3A.5, and draft replacement London Plan Policy 3.8, expect 10% of all new
housing to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users. Further guidance
to this policy is provided in the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Accessible
London: achieving an inclusive environment.’

38      Whilst the design and access statement demonstrates that the units will broadly meet
the Lifetime Homes criteria, the scheme does not accord with the requirement for wheelchair
housing, and does not meet the requirement for wheelchair parking provision. The Lifetime
Homes criteria require 10% of the units to have a wheelchair accessible parking space, plus one
additional unit per core. This should equate to 30 spaces. The applicant has indicated in the
submission that this can be accommodated if required, but this should be demonstrated on plan.
In addition the long-term management of wheelchair accessible parking should be the subject
of a condition by LTGDC.

39      Although the applicant has stated that it is providing 10% wheelchair accessible housing
in line with the London Plan, Policy 3A.5 requires any such units be “easily adaptable”. The

                                                                                        page 14
conversions required to turn an initial unit into a wheelchair home involve extensive internal
works, including the relocation of the entire kitchen. This scale of works is not considered to
constitute easily adaptable and therefore the applicant should identify how else it will meet this
requirement, through alternative units.

Children’s play space
40      Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should
ensure developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation,
based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future
needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance
‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that
there will be approximately 55 children within the development, of which 27 would be 0-4 year
olds, eighteen 5-11 year olds and ten 12-16 year olds. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10
sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace to be
provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 550 sq.m. of playspace, of
which at least 270 sq.m. should be on site.

41      The development provides 104 sq.m. of dedicated doorstep playable space for the under
5’s. This play space is poorly located at the edge of the development, and is not located in
proximity, or sight of, a residential entrance. Locating play provision adjacent to the river
could provide an interesting and enjoyable space, however further consideration should be
given to the location of play facilities throughout the development, including provision with a
clearer relationship to the residential units. As the scheme also includes 1,440 sq.m. of
additional public realm adjacent to the river, 1,063 sq.m. communal podium roof garden, and
1,523 sq.m. within the main square, the applicant should be able to provide the required
proportion of children’s play space, and better integrate play space throughout the scheme.
This can be in the form of multi-use spaces, which through good design and innovative use of
equipment, can provide general recreation space for all residents, whilst also providing a safe
area to play for children. At present, the majority of these additional spaces are over dominated
by hard landscaping. Therefore the applicant should submit further detailed designs
illustrating how these spaces can provide for wider recreation, and how the requirements for
play can be better met.

42      The applicant has not provided any information regarding the quantity and quality of
existing provision in the surrounding area, and therefore any indication where the needs of the
older children expected as part of this development will be met, and whether there is any
shortfall in the vicinity. An audit of existing provision, including safe routes to and from the
site, should be provided.

Climate change
43     The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require
developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate
change and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions (Policy 4A.1). Chapter 5 of the draft
replacement London Plan also requires developments to make the fullest contribution to
minimising carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate change mitigation

44     London Plan policies 4A.4-11 focus on mitigation of climate change and require a
reduction in a development’s carbon dioxide emissions through the use of passive design,

                                                                                         page 15
energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The London Plan requires developments to
make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide
emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising
decentralised energy, including renewables.

Energy efficiency standards

45      A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to
reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss
parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building
regulations. Other features include the use of thermal mass, natural ventilation, and energy
efficient lighting.

46     Through energy efficiency measures, the development is estimated to achieve a
reduction of fourteen tonnes per annum (3.4%) in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared
to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant scheme.

District heating

47      The applicant proposes to connect to the London Thames Gateway Heat Network
(LTGHN), when it extends to the Barking Town Centre. The applicant should continue to
prioritise connection to the LTGHN, and should provide evidence of correspondence as an
addendum to the energy strategy.

48      The applicant has also committed to having an onsite heat network served by a single
central energy centre provided in phase one. The district heating network will be served by
high efficiency boilers, provided in modules. The applicant should confirm that both the
residential and retail units will be connected to the communal heat network.

49     Through connecting to the external district heating network, a reduction in regulated
carbon dioxide emissions of 89 tonnes per annum (22%) is envisaged.



Combined heat and power

50     The applicant has discounted the use of combined heat and power. Given the scale of the
development, this is acceptable.

Cooling

51      The applicant states that the residential units have been designed to use natural
ventilation. No centralised cooling will be provided. Any retail units requiring cooling will
provide their own heat pump as part of their fit out package.

Renewable energy

52      The applicant proposes to install 133 sq.m. of photovolatic panels with an annual
electrical output of 15,371kWh/yr. The applicant states that this area of photovoltaic panels is
indicative and will be subject to review. The applicant should provide a roof drawing showing
the roof space available for solar panels as an addendum to the strategy. A minimum provision
of photovoltaic panels should be agreed and secured by condition.



                                                                                         page 16
53     A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of eight tonnes per annum (2.5%) will
be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. On a whole energy basis, a
reduction of 1.5% from renewable energy is proposed.

Summary

54     The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 306 tonnes of carbon
dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, district heating
connection and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of
110 tonnes per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant
development, equivalent to an overall saving of 27%. The overall scheme is acceptable, subject
to a minimum proportion of photovoltaic panels being agreed and secured by condition.



Climate change adaptation

55      London Plan Policy 4A.3 seeks to ensure future developments meet the highest
standards of sustainable design and construction, and Policy 4A.9 identifies five principles to
promote and support the most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise
overheating and urban heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; incorporate
sustainable drainage systems; minimise water use; and protect and enhance green
infrastructure. Specific policies relate to overheating (4A.10), living roofs and walls (4A.11)
and sustainable drainage (4A.14). Further guidance is provided in the London Plan Sustainable
Design and Construction SPG. Policies 5.3, 5.9 to 5.13, 5.15 of the draft replacement London
Plan are also relevant.

56     The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement which demonstrates broad
compliance with these policies. Specific measures include the provision of green roofs, the
incorporation of sustainable urban drainage measures including permeable surfaces and storm
water attenuations, and reducing water consumption to a maximum of 105 litres per person per
day. The proposed measures are acceptable and comply with London Plan climate change
adaptation policies.

Blue Ribbon Network
57      The proposal includes new public space along the River Roding, which is in accordance
with London Plan Policy 4C.11, and supported. However, as stated elsewhere in this report,
further consideration should be given to the use and design of this space, including a more
detailed and innovative landscape strategy, to ensure that the use of the river front is
maximised. As with the previous scheme, it is expected that the opportunity to actively engage
with the water, to encourage use and enjoyment of the Blue Ribbon Network, be secured by
condition. This should include details regarding river terraces and edge treatment, signage and
information boards, and management and maintenance.

Transport
58     This application was the subject of detailed comments provided by TfL in a letter dated
7 January 2011 to the Council, and further summarised below.

59      Due to the similarity of this proposal with the previous consented application on this
site, TfL requires all transport-related conditions and obligations secured as part of the exant


                                                                                         page 17
permission, to be retained for this revised application, as listed in the planning report for that
scheme (LTGDC/09/PC18).

60      TfL supports the provision of 61 car parking spaces for the residential element (a
ratio of 0.2 space per unit), and 44 spaces for both the retail floorspace and the Granary
building, which is adjacent to the application site. As discussed in paragraph 39, the
proportion of disabled parking bays should be increased, in accordance with London Plan
Policy 3C.23 ‘Parking strategy’ and draft London Plan Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. In addition, TfL
requests that all disabled parking spaces be fully designed in accordance with DfT’s
‘Inclusive Mobility’ guidance, to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
standards.

61      In accordance with recent policies, 20% of the total residential parking spaces should
be installed with electric charging points before occupation, whilst a further 20% should be
adapted with passive provision. Similarly, TfL also recommends that 20% of the total
commercial spaces should also be installed with electric charging points before occupation,
whilst a further 10% for passive provision.

62     An integral part of the previous application was the safeguarding of land for a public
transport, walking and cycling bridge, which would provide a direct link over the River
Roding, connecting to the adjacent Fresh Water development site, and subsequently
improve the site’s accessibility. Whilst this key link was previously part of the former East
London Line Transit phase two proposals, it is now unfunded under the current TfL
Business Plan 2009/10-2017/18.

63      Enhancing the site’s accessibility, through the provision of public transport
infrastructure, is in line with London Plan Policy 3C.14 (Enhanced bus priority, tram and
busway transit schemes), and particularly important given the site’s current poor levels of
accessibility. As such, TfL considers that the route alignment should still be safeguarded
through condition and requires that all planning obligations/conditions, agreed previously
regarding the provision of this bridge, be retained. Similarly, TfL also requires that the
applicant undertakes the necessary works on site to enable the future public transport
corridor through the site to be implemented in the future. Approval of the bridge detailed
designs, including its landing, should therefore be agreed by the highway authority in
consultation with TfL to ensure that standards for public transport routes are met.

64      To ensure compliance with TfL’s transport assessment Best Practice guidance
document (April 2010), the applicant should amend the transport assessment report with
regard to the selection of TRAVL sites and the road network capacity assessment results, in
line with the recommendations contained within TfL’s detailed letter to the borough.

65      In accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.21 ‘Improving conditions for walking’ and
draft London Plan Policy 6.10 ‘Walking’ , TfL requests that a Pedestrian Environment
Review System audit be undertaken, and the results of the audit included within the
transport assessment, together with recommendations. In addition, TfL requires signage for
walking and cyclists to the passenger transport network, and to local amenities, and
recommends that the applicant investigates the possibility of funding a Legible London
scheme to be used by visitors of the site, considering the site’s proximity to Barking Town
centre. Further discussions regarding this would be welcome.

66     TfL requires a Disability Discrimination Act assessment to be carried out on the
nearest bus stops on St Paul’s Road, to ensure that they are compliant with the current

                                                                                           page 18
guidance. TfL also requires a minimum of two metres footway clearance width to be
provided for footway throughout, and around the site, including the proposed footbridge.

67      Given that 29 3-bed units are proposed, TfL requires the applicant to increase
provision of on-site cycle parking spaces to 298 spaces, in line with London Plan Policy
3C.22 ‘Improving conditions for cycling’ and draft London Plan Policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’. TfL would
also recommend that these are covered by CCTV as an additional security measure. TfL
supports the provision of one space per 250 sq.m. for the commercial element of the scheme,
and the provision of shower facilities for the staff through the travel plan.

68        In accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.25 ‘Freight strategy’ and the draft
replacement London Plan Policy 6.14 ‘Freight’, TfL requires that the applicant produces a
delivery and servicing plan, which should identify where safe and legal loading can take
place without adverse impacts on the highway network, and a construction logistics plan,
which should identify measures of consolidating deliveries so fewer journeys are needed, and
a commitment to use freight operators who can demonstrate their commitment to best
practice.

69      The revised travel plan has not passed its ATTrBuTE assessment. TfL therefore
requires additional information, in line with the recommendations contained within TfL’s
detailed letter, before it is considered acceptable. The travel plan should be secured by
planning obligation.

Summary

70      In summary, TfL requires that all transport-related conditions and obligations
associated with the previous application for this site be retained for this revised application,
given the similarities with the consented scheme. The applicant should increase the
provision of disabled car parking and cycle parking, and amend the transport assessment
report and travel plan as detailed in the report, and letter, in order to be considered
acceptable. A Pedestrian Environment Review System audit and a Disability Discrimination
Act assessment of bus stops should also be carried out, in line with above advice, whilst
electric vehicle charging points, delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan
should all be secured by condition.

Local planning authority’s position
71    The application has not yet been considered by Barking and Dagenham Council or the
London Thames Gateway Development Corporation.

Legal considerations
72      Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a
statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,
and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Corporation
must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a
draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft
decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Corporation under Article 6 of the Order to refuse
the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his
intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the
Mayor’s statement and comments.

                                                                                          page 19
Financial considerations
73       There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion
74       London Plan policies on are relevant to this application:
        Land use: the delivery of creative industry floorspace is supported by London Plan
         Policy 3B.8.

        Housing: at this stage it is not yet possible to confirm whether the maximum
         reasonable amount of affordable housing is being delivered, and therefore whether the
         proposal accords with London Plan Policy 3A.10. In addition, there is serious
         outstanding concern regarding the mix of units (Policy 3A.5), and the delivery of the
         affordable units. The high-density nature of the scheme strongly relies upon the
         delivery of excellent amenity and public realm delivery, which should be addressed.

        Urban design: serious concerns are raised regarding the layout and public realm, and
         the facade treatments. The proposal does not accord with the relevant current, and
         emerging, London Plan policies and standards on this issue.

        Inclusive design: the proposal does not adequately provide wheelchair accessible units,
         or sufficient levels of wheelchair accessible car parking, and as such does not accord
         with London Plan Policy 3A.5.

        Children’s play space: the proposal does not provide adequate facilities for children’s
         play, both in terms of quantum and its design, and therefore does not comply with
         London Plan Policy 3D.13.

        Climate change: the strategy is broadly acceptable and in line with London Plan
         policies relating to climate change. However, a minimum proportion of photovoltaic
         panels should be agreed and secured by condition.

        Transport: TfL requires that all transport-related conditions and obligations
         associated with the previous application for this site be retained for this revised
         application. In accordance with London Plan policies 3C.14, 3C.21, 3C.23 and 3C.25,
         and draft replacement Plan policies 6.10, 6.13, and 6.14, the applicant should increase
         the provision of disabled car parking and cycle parking, and amend the transport
         assessment report and travel plan as detailed in the report, and letter, in order to be
         considered acceptable. A Pedestrian Environment Review System audit and a
         Disability Discrimination Act assessment of bus stops should also be carried out,
         whilst the provision of electric vehicle charging points, and a delivery and servicing
         plan and construction logistics plan, should all be secured by condition.

75     On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following
changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to
the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:
      Housing: the financial appraisal of the scheme is currently being independently assessed
       to ensure that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being delivered.
       The applicant should provide further detailed justification in support of the proposed
       housing mix. If no such justification can be provided, the mix should be reconfigured to

                                                                                          page 20
       provide additional social rented family accommodation. In addition, further information
       is required regarding the delivery and phasing of the affordable housing units.
      Urban design: the applicant should reconsider the location of entrances at ground floor,
       the quantum of parking within the main square, and produce a detailed landscaping and
       public realm strategy for the whole site. The applicant should also reconsider the use of
       render in the facade treatment.

      Inclusive design: the applicant should identify sufficient units which could be easily
       adapted into wheelchair accessible units, and demonstrate how the requirements for
       wheelchair accessible car parking will be met, and also how it will be managed in the
       long-term.

    Children’s play space: the applicant should increase the provision of informal children’s
     play space throughout the development, as part of a wider landscape strategy. In
     addition, information about existing facilities, particularly for older children, should be
     provided.
      Climate change: a minimum proportion of photovoltaic panels should be agreed and
       secured by condition.

    Transport: TfL requires that all transport-related conditions and obligations associated
     with the previous application for this site be retained for this revised application. In
     addition, the applicant should increase the provision of disabled car parking and cycle
     parking, amend the transport assessment report and travel plan, and undertake a
     Pedestrian Environment Review System audit and a Disability Discrimination Act
     assessment of bus stops. The provision of electric vehicle charging points, and a
     delivery and servicing plan and construction logistics plan, should all be secured by
     condition.




for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions
020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Sarah Considine, Principal Strategic Planner, Case Officer
020 7983 5751 email sarah.considine@london.gov.uk




                                                                                       page 21

								
To top