leamouth peninsula north report by 2ca6u9z

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 30

									                                                         planning report PDU/1097c/02
                                                                                 20 April 2011

                                           Leamouth Peninsula North
         London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London
                                         Borough of Tower Hamlets )
                                               planning application no. PA/10/01864/


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
Part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706
residential units, together with business, retail, leisure, arts, cultural, education and
community floor space.

The applicant
The applicant is Clearstorm Properties Ltd, a full subsidiary of the Ballymore group of
companies. The architect is Capita Lovejoy.

Strategic issues
The principle of a high-density mixed-use residential led redevelopment of the site is in the
interest of good strategic planning in London. The application is consistent with London Plan
policy and further information has been provided in relation to affordable housing, child
play space, energy and transport such that the scheme is in now in compliance with the
London Plan.

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

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 29 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets
Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC)
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above



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

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

Category 1B “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside
Central London with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.

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

Category 3B “Development which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a use within
Class B1, B2 or B8 of the Use Classes Order and is likely to prejudice the use of that land for any such
use”.

Category 3F “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the provision of more
than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use”.

2       On 4 November 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1097c/01, and
subsequently advised the Corporation that the application did not comply with the London
Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 106 of the above-mentioned report; but that the
possible remedies set out in paragraph 108 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 and on 21 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 application was
validated on 7 April 2011 and as such the Mayor has until 20 April 2011 to notify the LTGDC
of his decision and to issue any direction.

4       The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken
into account in the consideration of this case.

5     The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website
www.london.gov.uk.

Update
6      At the consultation stage the Corporation was advised that the application complied
with some London Plan policies, but not with others, and that amendments and further
information were required in order for scheme to be fully compliant with the London Plan.
This related to affordable housing, children’s play space, inclusive design, climate change
mitigation and transport. Addressing each of these points in turn, the following is noted:

Access and inclusive design

7      At the initial consultation stage, it was noted that a comprehensive access statement had
been submitted, but that conditions would be necessary to monitor and review the blue badge
parking. It was questioned as to whether the number of spaces could be increased to equate to


                                                                                                  page 2
the number of wheelchair accessible units (170). The importance of securing accessibility
features of the leisure facility and pedestrian bridge was also noted.

8       The Corporation has included a number of conditions in the draft decision notice, which
require detailed plans to be submitted in relation to the pedestrian and cycle bridge, a detailed
access statement for each phase, compliance with Lifetime Homes criteria, and that 10% of
residential units are capable of being easily adapted. A clause has also been included in the
draft s106 legal agreement requiring monitoring and review of the blue badge parking spaces,
such that a commensurate number of spaces are provided in relation to the level of ownership
by disabled persons. These commitments are welcomed and ensure compliance with London
Plan policy 4B.5.

Affordable housing

9       At the initial consultation stage, the applicant’s affordable housing offer was noted and
it was requested that further discussion take place once applicant’s financial appraisal had had
been independently verified. This was with view to establishing appropriate review
mechanisms, given the phasing of the development and length of the construction programme.

10       Since then, the applicant’s toolkit has been independently reviewed, and it has been
concluded that the applicant has fairly and reasonably represented the economics of the scheme
in the context of current market conditions. The configuration of the scheme in two separate
phases provides an opportunity to review the viability of a large part of the scheme at a later
date, possibly when market conditions have improved. In accordance with requests at the
initial consultation stage, a review mechanism is proposed as part of the section 106, which
secures increased tariff payments at Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the event that sales values of the
private units exceed certain threshold values (in terms of achieved sales revenues per square
foot). Appropriate trigger levels have been agreed, which ensure that the levels are not
weighted too heavily in favour of the applicant and that there will be a prospect that further
payment towards affordable housing are achieved, should the market improve.

11      On the basis that the scheme achieves the maximum reasonable amount of affordable
housing based on current market conditions, and secures increased contributions in the future,
based on realistic threshold values being reached, the applicant’s offer is appropriate in this
case, and in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.10.

Child play space

12     In considering the scheme at Stage 1, it was not clear from the plans how much
designated play space was being provided, and how the site was connected to existing local
areas of play and recreation to supplement the on-site facilities.

13     The applicant has subsequently provided details of the proposed landscape strategy
which sets out the location and quantum of play space provided in the development. The
scheme proposes dedicated play space with a range of equipment and features for the relevant
age group it serves. The scheme proposes 4,905 sq.m. of play space, which is well in excess of
the required space based on a child yield of 364 children (3,640 sq.m.). The Corporation has
secured a condition, requiring details of the child play areas to be submitted prior to the
occupation of each phase. These commitments are welcomed, and ensure that the scheme is in
accordance with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

Climate change mitigation - energy

14    At the initial consultation, a number of comments were made about the applicant’s
energy strategy. This related specifically to commitment to exceeding 2010 Building

                                                                                          page 3
Regulations through energy efficiency alone, providing details of how all building uses would
be connected to a single site wide network that would be supplied by a single energy centre.
Information about the optimisation of the CHP, and how it would provide all of the domestic
hot water as well as a proportion of the development’s space heating demands was requested.
Further details of the cooling strategy, and the renewable energy approach were also
requested.

15     The applicant has subsequently provided further information in relation to the proposed
energy strategy, including modelling the development with 2010 Building Regulations
compliance software, so as to demonstrate that the highest levels of energy efficiency will be
achieved. The applicant has committed to using reasonable endeavours on passive design and
adopting additional energy measures with the aim of each element of the development
achieving 2010 Building Regulations, in the form of improvements on u-values, thermal
bridging details and air-tightness levels approaching 3 m3/hr sq.m., which is welcomed.

16      The applicant has provided an indicative drawing showing the heat network linking the
buildings, including Building K, on the development with heat fed from an energy centre in
Building N. Building N is already built and will include the energy centre for the whole
development. The information confirms that there will be an active cooling load for the leisure
centre in Building K and this will be met by ground source heat pumps. The system will make
use of boreholes that have already been drilled for a previous development.

17      With respect to the heating of the swimming pool and space heating of the leisure
centre, the applicant has confirmed that the swimming pool heat load and the space heating
loads will also be connected to the development’s district heating heat network, where CHP is
the lead heat source. This commitment is welcomed and condition 63 appropriately requires all
spaces to be connected to this heat network.

18      In relation to the proposals for PV panels, the Corporation has imposed a condition
requiring details of a feasibility study that investigates the potential to reduce the
development’s carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from on-site photovoltaic arrays. The PV
could be located on the roof of Building N, mounted at a horizontal inclination. The PV would
serve a proportion of the landlord’s electrical load and would make a contribution of 0.04% to
the site’s overall electricity consumption and generate an additional carbon reduction of 0.1%.
The applicant is intending to progress with installing the ground source heat pumps in lieu of
installing any PV panels in this instance, as the climate change benefit from installing PV
panels is significantly less than the savings given that it results in more savings in carbon
emissions delivered by implementing the ground-coupling technology (already established on
the development site). This approach is considered reasonable in this instance, and the
condition is suitably flexible to allow the approach to be reviewed at reserved matters stage.

Transport

19      At the initial consultation stage, a number of points were raised, requiring additional
information, discussions between TfL, the Council, LTGDC and the applicant, and that
specific contributions be secured as part of any planning permission.

Parking

19     At Stage 1, TfL confirmed that the proposed level of car parking for the completed
development (equating to an overall provision of 0.4 spaces per unit) was within the
maximum standards set out in the London Plan Policy 3C.21 and draft replacement policy
6.13. All parking for the non-residential elements of the proposed scheme is also in line with



                                                                                          page 4
London Plan policy. Overall, the proposed level of cycle parking is acceptable and in line
with minimum standards.

20      As part of the proposed section 106 agreement, a car parking management scheme
has been secured. This will ensure that 10% of all spaces specifically for use by people with
disabilities and include a review mechanism to ensure that disabled parking provision
increases with demand. The provision of ten car club spaces is welcomed, and this is secured
in the section 106 agreement. The commitment to ensuring that 20% of all parking spaces
are fitted with electric vehicle charging facilities is also welcomed in line with draft
replacement London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. This is secured through planning condition.

Connectivity

21      Throughout the planning application process, TfL has worked with the applicant, the
Council, and LTGDC to overcome the isolation of this site and to ensure the necessary
public transport accessibility and connectivity to/from the site will be provided to support
the high density development proposed. Accordingly, the proposed bridge link to Canning
Town Station is essential to improve the site’s accessibility as it is expected to boost the
public transport accessibility level of the northern section of the site from 1 to 6. As such,
the section 106 obligation that will deliver the footbridge prior to the final occupation of
Phase 1 is welcomed. Notwithstanding this, the ability of the proposed bridge link to
increase the PTAL of the site relies on access being provided through Canning Town
station. The station is not a thoroughfare and as such, public access will only be possible
when the station is open to the travelling public.

22      In order to link the development site to Canning Town station and on to Silvertown
Way, it is necessary to bring the Bow Creek entrance/exit of the underground station
(known as the ‘rotunda’) into operation. The applicant has agreed to the principle of ensuring
the timely delivery of the works to the rotunda in accordance with London Underground’s
specification, although TfL requires further discussion with the applicant and LTGDC to
ensure that this is fully reflected in the final Section 106 Agreement.

Buses

23     As the proposed development will place a significant demand on bus services, TfL
welcomes the ring-fencing by LTGDC of £3.3 million towards bus capacity, as identified in
the draft section 106 agreement, in line with London Plan policy 3C.2. Of this, £2.2 million
should be paid to TfL prior to first occupation of Phase 1, and the remaining £1.1 million
should be payable prior to the occupation of Phase 2. TfL requires further discussion with
the LTGDC to ensure that the appropriate triggers for the payment(s) of this contribution
are enshrined in the final section 106 agreement.

Bus Infrastructure

24      To allow a bus service to serve the peninsula, appropriate facilities, including bus
stopping and standing facilities and driver toilets will be required to the south of the site, on
Orchard Place. The above infrastructure is essential to the development’s accessibility and a
condition is contained in the decision notice to ensure that these facilities are in place prior
to the development of the Phase 1 of development. This should also be enshrined in the
section 106.

Highway Alterations



                                                                                            page 5
24      Following further discussions with the applicant, TfL is pleased that the proposal to
signalise the northern arm of the Leamouth Roundabout are no longer being pursued as this
would conflict with the Mayor’s aspiration to smooth traffic flow on the strategic road
network.

25      In order ensure that a safe and direct pedestrian route can be provided between the
site and East India DLR station, TfL welcomes the section 106 obligation which will require
the applicant to deliver these works, should LTGDC not bring them to fruition as part of the
Olympic Park ‘FATwalk’ proposals is welcomed. Although the applicant has agreed to the
principle of ensuring that these facilities are in place prior to first occupation of Phase 1, TfL
requires assurances that this will be reflected in the final section 106 agreement. Delivery of
these facilities prior to first occupation is essential to integrating the proposed development
with the wider public transport network, in line with London Plan policy 3C.2.

TfL Traffic Control Centre

26      Throughout the application process, TfL has sought to ensure that the continued
operation of the TfL Traffic Control Centre & Depot on Orchard Place is safeguarded
throughout the construction and operation of the proposed development. A clause has been
added to the section 106 agreement which obliges the applicant to maintain unimpeded
access to the centre, and this is welcomed.

Docklands Light Railway Services

27      At Stage 1, TfL requested a contribution towards improving the poor environment
around the forecourt of East India DLR station. Whilst a contribution of this nature has not
been specifically identified, TfL recommends that monies are made available from the overall
section 106 tariff in order to mitigate additional trips from this scheme in accordance with
policies 3C.9 and 3C.21, and draft replacement policy 6.10.

28      TfL welcomes the provision within the section 106 agreement for the installation of
real-time information boards in the communal areas of the proposed development. TfL also
welcomes the proposed planning condition which requires the applicant to assess the impact
of the development on the DLR radio signal, and, if necessary, agree and implemented
necessary mitigation.

Travel Planning

29      The applicant’s travel plan is in line with London Plan Policy 3C.1, and the objectives
of this have been agreed with TfL. Both a delivery and servicing plan and a construction
management plan have been secured via planning condition.

Response to consultation
30      The application was advertised by site and press notices and consultation letters,
which were sent to occupiers of 2,449 adjoining and surrounding properties, together with
all parties which made representations on the previous application.

31     A total of six responses were received as a result of the consultation process, of which
one comprised an objection, four were in support, and one response was a general objection.
The sole letter of objection raises concerns regarding the impact of the scheme upon the
skyline and views around East India Dock Basin. The issue of design and visual impact has
been dealt with in this and the previous report.


                                                                                            page 6
32     Agregate Industries and London Concrete confirm their aspirations to re-activate
Orchard Wharf, a safeguarded wharf in the vicinity of the site. A letter of support has been
received from the Trinity Buoy Wharf Trust, welcoming the proposed bridge link.

33     Other statutory consultees responded as follows:

       CABE: Supports the layout and massing of the masterplan, the architectural quality,
       design, materials and strong landscape strategy. The removal of podium is welcomed,
       and the principle of connecting to Royal Docks energy network, and other sustainability
       features. Raises concern about the loss of a direct, 24-hour connection across the DLR
       tracks to Canning Town that was provided in the previously approved scheme.

       Environment Agency: Has raised objections to the proposal on grounds of potential
       impact on inter-tidal habitat loss and flooding as a result of the proposed encroachment
       of the northern bridge landing. There is also a lack of information in relation to
       hydrological assessment, calculations for the associated encroachment and hydraulic
       modelling to assess potential scour and habitat loss, and impact upon stability of the
       flood defences. Requests that it be demonstrated that the impacts can or cannot be
       reasonably avoided before considering compensation/mitigation.

       Ports of London Authority: Has raised concerns about the relationship with Orchard
       Wharf, in relation to cargo handling, noise, air quality, light pollution. Concerns also
       raised about the intrusion of the proposed bridge landing into the river and the
       implications for its navigational function. A navigational safety risk assessment is
       required and a final parameter plan will need to be prepared which tests all options for
       the bridge. The LTGDC has suggested a s106 clause that requires the applicant to test
       all options for the bridge and that it be delivered in accordance with the final parameter
       plan/risk assessment before the final occupation of phase 1.

       British Waterways: Seeks to ensure that navigation along Bow Creek to the Thames is
       not adversely affected, and that headroom under the new bridge retains an air draft of at
       least 5.5 metres.

       English Heritage (Archaeology): Reference is made to the archaeological excavations
       carried out on the site previously, and a condition is suggested in relation to post-
       excavation work.

       Lee Valley Regional Park Authority: Requests that funding be secured for
       improvements to open space, landscaping and habitat enhancements. In accordance
       with comments made, conditions have been imposed in relation to lighting, green and
       brown roofs, bird nesting and bat roosting, together with details of the ecological
       riverside edge.

       Metropolitan Police Authority: Requests the provision of a self-contained unit within
       the development to accommodate community policing facilities at a peppercorn rent, as
       was agreed as part of the previous planning permission. LTGDC has secured this space
       as part of the section 106 legal agreement

       Crossrail: Various conditions are proposed in relation to safeguarding Crossrail
       structures and tunnels.

       London Underground: No objection in principle subject to ensuring that the rotunda
       is brought up to current operational standards

       Docklands Light Railway: No comments received.

                                                                                          page 7
       London City Airport: No comments received.

       London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: Requests conditions regarding
       brigade access and water supplies, which have been secured by the GLA.

       Thames Water Authority: Raises no objections, but suggests conditions regarding
       minimum pressure head and flow rates, and the need for drainage plans for all phases.
       Appropriately worded conditions and informatives have been secured in the draft
       decision notice

       National Air Traffic Services Ltd: No safeguarding objections to the proposal.

       Civil Aviation Authority: Advises that consultation with London City Airport will be
       appropriate, together with possible need for en-route obstruction lighting from
       structures and cranes.

       National Grid: Has provided general guidance and advice notes regarding the
       safeguarding of pressure pipelines in the vicinity of the site.

       EDF Energy Networks: No comments received.

       Health and Safety Executive: The development does not fall with an HSE zone.

       Olympic Joint Planning Authorities Team:

       Sport England: No comments received.

       Greenwich Council: Raises no observations.

34       Newham Council were notified of the application, due to part of the site falling within
its jurisdiction. It has provided comments on the application, supporting the overall design
approach and heights of buildings and energy strategy in particular. Comments are made in
relation to the connection with the peninsula, and that the preference would be that this took
place to the south, via the Limmo Site. The loss of the former ‘green bridge’ proposed in the
previous application is disappointing, but the intention not to progress the Rueben’s Bridge
route to the station is welcomed, due to safety concerns. Comments are made in relation to the
s106 contributions for the rotunda and surrounding public realm, and that conditions are
imposed in relation to the design of the bridge, buildings, and the incorporation of the
transportation of freight by river.

35    Tower Hamlets Council considered the application on 7 March 2011 and resolved to
recommend that the LTGDC refuse permission for the following reasons:

   1. The provision of 19.6% affordable housing (or 11% without grant funding) together
      with the proposed cascade mechanism would fail to contribute towards meeting the
      borough’s affordable housing need and affordable housing targets, contrary to the aims
      of PPS3, Policy 3A.9 of the London Plan (2008), Policy HSG3 of the IPG (2007) and
      Policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure the borough meets the
      overall strategic target for affordable housing.

   2. The overall under provision of family housing would result in an unacceptable housing
      mix contrary to policy 3A.9 and 3A.10 in London plan, policy HSG2 and HSG3 in the
      IPG (2007) and policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure
      developments provide an appropriate housing mix to meet the needs of the borough.



                                                                                        page 8
   3. Given the significance of this strategic site in terms of the Council's overall growth
      agenda and the vision for Leamouth (especially housing growth, the provision of
      affordable housing, improved connectivity and the delivery of required
      social/community infrastructure to support development), the proposal, viewed
      alongside financial viability constraints and the inability of the scheme to satisfactorily
      mitigate the various impacts and accommodate associated infrastructure requirements,
      will fail to deliver a sustainable, liveable, vibrant, accessible and inclusive community,
      contrary to policies S01, SP02 and SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010).

   4. The proposal, by virtue of the proposed solid encroachment of the northern bridge
      landing on to the foreshore, fails to provides sufficient information to ensure necessary
      mitigation against nature conservation contrary to Policy 3D.14 and Policy 4B.1 of the
      London Plan (2008); the London Biodiversity Action Plan (2008); Policy DEV57 of
      Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) (saved policies); Policy DEV7 of Tower Hamlets IPG
      (2007) and Policy SP04 of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) which seeks to protect
      and enhance biodiversity value.

   5. The proposed encroachment of the northern bridge landing into the river is likely to
      impede flood flow and/or reduce storage capacity, thereby increasing the risk of
      flooding contrary to PPS25, Policy 4A.13 of the London Plan (2008), Policy DEV21 of
      Tower Hamlets IPG (2007) and Policy SP04 of the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to
      reduce the risk and impact of flooding.

   6. The encroachment of the northern bridge landing in to the deepest part of the river is
      considered to have adverse impact on the navigational function of the river, and
      considered unacceptable by the Council and the Port of London Authority, contrary to
      Policy SP04 (4) of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy OSN3 of the IPG (2007) which
      seek to deliver a network of high quality usable and accessible water spaces through
      protecting and safeguarding existing water spaces from inappropriate development and
      using water spaces for movement and transport.

36     In a letter dated 6 April 2011, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets has written to the Mayor,
seeking his intervention in the application. The Council has raised serious doubts that the
proposal, in the current economic climate, is able to contribute to the Borough’s growth agenda
without compromising the required infrastructure needs associated with such growth and
development.

37      In relation to the points raised in relation to the bridge landing and flooding issues, it is
understood that the PLA and EA still require technical issues to be resolved and these can be
resolved through suitably worded planning obligations that require resolution in advance of
work commencing, acknowledging that the principle of the bridge has been established
previously. In relation to the Council’s dissatisfaction with the applicant’s affordable housing
offer, as noted in paragraph 10 above, discussions have been on-going between the applicant
and LTGDC in order to agree trigger points for increased tariff payments, thereby ensuring
that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is secured over the life of the
scheme. In relation to the housing mix, the scheme has been drawn up following discussion
with the main affordable housing provider in the borough, and any uplift generated in the later
phases will fall on the Council to determine the amount of family housing required in the
borough.

Legal considerations
38     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

                                                                                             page 9
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
39     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.

40      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
41      Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in London Thames
Gateway Development Corporation’s committee report and its draft decision notice, this
scheme is acceptable in strategic planning terms. Further information has been provided,
which together with conditions (and planning obligations) imposed by the Corporation, address
all the outstanding issues that were raised at Stage 1. On this basis, there are no sound reasons
for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case




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
Samantha Wells, Case Officer
020 7983 4266 email samantha.wells@london.gov.uk




                                                                                        page 10
                                                         planning report PDU/1097c/01
                                                                            4 November 2010

                                           Leamouth Peninsula North
                              London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
                        (in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Newham)
                                                planning application no. PA/10/01864


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
Part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706
residential units, 7, 848 sq.m. business floorspace, 1,852 sq.m. of retail floorspace, 1, 801 sq.m.
of leisure floorspace, 2,049 sq.m. of arts and cultural floorspace, 4,800 sq.m. of education
floorspace, 1,296 sq.m. of community use floorspace.

The applicant
The applicant is Clearstorm Properties Ltd, a full subsidiary of the Ballymore group of
companies. The architect is Capita Lovejoy.

Strategic issues
The principle of a high-density mixed-use residential led redevelopment of the site is in the
interest of good strategic planning in London. The application is broadly consistent with
London Plan policy; however, further information is required on affordable housing, child
play space, energy and transport to ensure compliance with the London Plan.

Recommendation
That Tower Hamlets and Newham 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 106 of this report; but that the possible remedies set
out in paragraph 108 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 29 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower
Hamlets Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
(LTGDC) notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to
develop the above site for the above uses. The application is also expected to be referred by

                                                                                           page 11
Newham Council in the near future. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning
(Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 9 November 2010 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 Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008:
”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and
flat”. Category 1B “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings
outside Central London with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”. Category 1C “Development
which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of
London”. Category 3B “Development which occupies more than 4 hectares of land which is used for a
use within Class B1, B2 or B8 of the Use Classes Order and is likely to prejudice the use of that land for
any such use”. Category 3F “Development for a use, other than residential use, which includes the
provision of more than 200 car parking spaces in connection with that use”.

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 site is located at the southern end of the Lower Lea Valley, at the border of the
London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham. The site covers the entire peninsula, which
has been cleared following the grant of planning permission in 2007. As the application
includes a pedestrian bridge across the River Lea part of the site is within the London Borough
of Newham. The entire site, however, is within the London Thames Gateway Development
Corporation boundary.

6       The site is unique in being almost completely surrounded by water and inter-tidal mud
flats. To the west of the site is the Limmo peninsula ecological park – a strip of land that is also
dissected by the Docklands Light Railway. To the south of the site is the road overpass of the
Lower Lea Crossing. To the southwest is the nature reserve of East India Dock Basin and,
further west along the River Thames, ongoing redevelopment close to East India station. To
the southeast of the site is ‘Leamouth Peninsula South’, with Trinity Buoy Wharf as a
redevelopment marker at the far end of this peninsula. To the east of the site, in the London
Borough of Newham, is a collection of infrastructure consisting of railway tracks for Docklands
Light Railway, the overland train to Silvertown Way, as well as a strip of industrial uses.
Overhead power lines run along and across the railway infrastructure at Canning Town.
Canning Town interchange provides access to the overland train connection between North
Woolwich and Stratford, a Docklands Light Railway connection to the City, Beckon and City
Airport, the Jubilee underground line to Stratford and central London and to eleven bus routes.
At the moment, however, the site is disconnected from Canning Town interchange.

7      The closest section of the Transport for London road network is the A1261 Aspen Way
and the slip roads which lead to the Leamouth Roundabout, 400 metres to the west of the site.
East India Docklands Light Railway station lies 500 metres to the southwest of the site. Bus

                                                                                                page 12
route 277 can also be accessed at the Leamouth Roundabout. The public transport accessibility
level of the site currently varies across the site, but is as low as 1 in the northern part (out of 6,
where 6 is the most accessible).

Details of the proposal
8        Permission is sought for a part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use
development comprising 1,706 residential units, 7, 848 sq.m. business floorspace, 1,852 sq.m. of
retail floorspace, 1, 801 sq.m. of leisure floorspace, 2,049 sq.m. of arts and cultural floorspace,
4,800 sq.m. of education floorspace, 1,296 sq.m. of community use floorspace.

9      The proposal also includes an energy centre, car and cycle parking and a new pedestrian
bridge across the River Lea.

10     The thirteen buildings will range in height from 3 to 27 storeys with the tallest
buildings positioned towards the end of the peninsula.

11     A breakdown of the residential units for the first phase is shown below.

                     Social         Private       Total       %
                     rented
       Studio        -              54            54          10%

       1-bed         45             109           154         29%

       2-bed         70             131           201         37%

       3-bed         64             36            100         19%

       4-bed         16             -             16          3%

       5-bed         12             -             12          2%

       Total         207            330           537         100

       %             39%            61%           100



12     The applicant has also provided an indicative breakdown of the unit ranges for the later
phases. The later phases will be mainly private units with some affordable intermediate units,
the proportion of which is yet to be fixed. However, the applicant has indicated that the overall
mix proportion of affordable housing will not exceed 20%. It is therefore likely that the later
phases will provide circa 4% social rented units.

                   Private units           Intermediate units
                   Percentag Max           Percentage Max
                   e range       No. of    range        No. of
                                 units                  units
       Studio      5-20%         225       -              -


                                                                                             page 13
         1-bed      35-45%       505      40-60%        28

         2-bed      20-35%       292      40-60%        18

         3-bed      7.5-15%      84       -             -

         4-bed      1.5-5%       17       -             -

         5-bed      -            -        -             -

         Total                   1,123                  46



13     In addition to the 537 residential units, phase one will also provide a flexible workspace
building, a leisure facility, a small cultural facility, a community centre and an energy centre.
The main creative industries hub with the remaining employment floorspace, retail and
cultural floorspace will come forward in later phases as part of the creative industries hub.

Case history
14      In 2007 permission was granted for the redevelopment of the Pura Foods factory to a
high-density mixed-use residential-led redevelopment of the site. Comprising 1,663-1,884
residential units, a primary school for 371 children, 16,690 sq.m of office floorspace, 1,150 sq.m.
of retail and restaurant floorspace, 4,600 sq.m. of other commercial and community floorspace
and 2,170 sq.m. of leisure floorspace.

15       The principal of a mixed-use residential-led development has therefore been established.

16      In January 2010 the applicant began a series of meetings with officers from the GLA,
LTGDC and Tower Hamlets to discuss a new proposal for redeveloping the site. The main
differences between the this application and the consented scheme are as follows:-

        The range of residential units (1,663 –1,884) has been removed. A set number of 1,706
         residential units are now proposed.

        The podium has been removed and the design of the development altered.

        The number of car parking spaces has been reduced.

        The non-residential uses have been relocated in the proposal.

        The phasing of the development has reversed.

        The second pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks connecting the site to Canning
         Town has been removed.

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

 Principle of development       London Plan; PPS1

                                                                                          page 14
 Density                      London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG;
                               Housing SPG EiP draft
 Tall buildings/views         London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework
                               SPG
 Urban design                 London Plan; PPS1
 Access                       London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive
                               environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good
                               practice guide (ODPM)
 Affordable housing           London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim
                               Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft
 Child play space             London Plan; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and
                               Informal Recreation SPG
 Affordable housing           London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim
                               Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft
 River Thames/flooding        London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B
 Biodiversity                 London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS
                               Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment

 Climate change               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
 Transport                    London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13


18     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 Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Unitary
Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

19     The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation is also
material considerations.


Principle of development
20      The principle of redeveloping the site to provide a high-density mixed-use development
is already established through the extant 2007 permission. The provision of residential
accommodation on this site is also supported by London Plan policy 3A.1, which seeks to
increase London’s supply of housing and policy 3A.3 which seeks to ensure that development
proposals achieve the maximum intensity of use compatible with the local context, the design
principles in policy 4B.5 of the London Plan and with public transport. The provision of the
business and retail floorspace is supported by policies 3B.8 and 3D.3 of the London Plan. The
provision of arts and cultural floorspace is supported by policy 3D.4 of the London Plan. The
provision of leisure and community facilities are supported by policy 3A.18 of the London Plan
and the provision of education facilities are supported by policy 3A.24 of the London Plan.

21     The proposal is also supported by policies in the draft replacement London Plan.

Density

                                                                                        page 15
22      The London Plan and draft replacement London Plan density matrix uses three
parameters to suggest density ranges for residential developments: location, accessibility
index and setting. In terms of location Poplar town centre (which is a ‘district centre’ in the
London Plan classification) is 1.5 kilometers away and Canning town centre (also a ‘district
centre’) is circa 700 metres away, from the middle of the site, across the proposed bridge
connection. The public transport accessibility level is currently 1 with the potential for 6 if
an appropriate connection with Canning Town Station is provided.

23      The area is currently industrial land and therefore a characterisation as described in
the London Plan density matrix is difficult to apply. However, the extant permission
established the aspiration to develop this area as part of an area which is ‘central’ providing a
density range of 240 –405 units per hectare or 650 – 1100 habitable rooms per hectare.

24     The proposed density of the site is 364 units per hectare or 887 habitable rooms per
hectare. A reduction of approximately 17% on the extant planning permission. The density
matrix, provides a tool for increasing density in locations where transport proposals will
change the public transport accessibility ranking and is dependant on the characterisation of
current conditions or aspirations to create new parts of the city.

25     The site is potentially highly accessible, being within walking distance to Canning
Town town centre and in relatively close proximity to Canary Wharf and Stratford (Jubilee
Line, and DLR). As such the proposed density is considered appropriate.

Tall buildings/views
26      London Plan policies 4B.8 and 4B.9, which relate to the specific design issues associated
with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These
policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which
are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a
significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of
planning applications to the Mayor. Policy 7.7 of the draft replacement London Plan is also
relevant.

27      The site has extant outline permission for the development of tall buildings, and the
current proposal proposes tall buildings of similar overall height and scale. The principle of
tall building development on the site is established by the extant permission. The development
is therefore considered in the context of the revised London View Management Framework
(LVMF) and the amended massing, scale and appearance of the proposed buildings.

28      The LVMF identifies a number of important views integral to defining London’s
character. Although the site is not within a viewing corridor, it is visible within the context of
the panorama viewed from Greenwich Park. The applicant’s environmental statement
demonstrates that the proposed buildings will be visible above the dome of the O2 in North
Greenwich. The LVMF recognises the venue as a landmark, but has no specific measures for
its protection. In this case, although development will be visible, the O2 will remain the
dominant feature. The development will have no detrimental impact on the views over the
World Heritage Site.

Urban design
29     Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted
by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and

                                                                                          page 16
specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design
principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in
the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of
sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views,
and the Blue Ribbon Network. The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles,
with new development required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the
character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (policy 7.1).

30      This iteration of the scheme proposes several improvements over the previously
approved scheme. These include the introduction of a landscaping scheme at ground level,
which allows better accessibility and potential for views through the peninsula, the creation of
mixed-use nodes throughout the site, more appropriate conditions for residents during phasing,
as well as the introduction of larger areas of open space more appropriate to play or other
activities. The application details full specifications for the first phase of the development, with
the proposal appearing to be of a generally high standard. The subsequent future phase of the
scheme is limited to parameter plans and design guidelines that provide a degree of flexibility
in future design, but the GLA is confident that these would be delivered to a standard
comparable with the earlier development.

31    Officers have been involved within the development of the scheme, attending design
workshops with the applicant and Council/LTGDC officers.

Layout, scale and massing

32     The layout is similar to that within the previous proposal, with a semi-organic form that
will contribute to interesting spaces around the buildings. The buildings’ proposed locations
would relate positively to the river and create interesting routes throughout the site.

33      The supporting material within the design and access statement demonstrates that the
scheme will have a substantially urban character, but that this will be somewhat offset by the
creation of substantial areas of open space. Buildings surround the spaces, with active layouts
proposed at ground floor level to focus activity. The scale of the buildings are also likely to
provide appropriate levels of enclosure. The tall well-proportioned towers, with medium-rise
infilling elements add to the character of the development, allow sunlight through the
development and ensure that buildings do not become overbearing on the open spaces.

34     Rather than being limited to rectangular blocks, the buildings utilise the layout pattern
to provide interesting shapes, with features such as inset gardens within the buildings. The
exception to this within the first phase is the proposed car park block. While the external
materials help to reduce its massing, their application over substantially proportioned facades
and the lack of features such as windows contribute to making the building appear bulky, and
at odds with the rest of the scheme.

35     A large car-park element is also proposed in the later phases, and this will raise similar
design challenges. It will also be important to ensure that the design of the building interacts
with the ground floor uses and that transitions in external building treatment between car
parking and other levels are sympathetically applied.

Appearance and landscaping
36      The design and access statement and design guidelines provide a detailed indication of
the future character of the development, with a strong role for each of the main open spaces.
The use of a common elevational language across the various buildings is supported, as is the

                                                                                          page 17
choice to engage different architects for each of the buildings, who have responded well to the
challenge of creating individually recognisable buildings within the overall framework. The
landscaping proposals for the upgrading of the various routes to and around the site are also
welcomed.

37    The buildings will have clear entrance points for communal areas – double height in
many instances – and the ground floor uses will provide active frontages along public spaces.

38     The treatment of the car park close to the entrance remains a concern. The design and
access statement indicates that significant efforts have been made to make its appearance as
interesting as possible, however it still appears bulky and at odds with the rest of the
development. It is however a significant improvement over the extant permission which
provides parking below a raised ground level.

Residential quality

39     The residential quality of units in phase one is high. The applicant has submitted a
comparison of the unit sizes again the floorspace standard in the draft housing Design
Guidance and policy 3.3 of the draft replacement London Plan. All of exceed the minimum
standards. The LTGDC should ensure the residential units in the later phases are equally
generous.

40      Although single aspect buildings are located throughout the development, none of the
first-phase single aspect units will be north-facing, and many would benefit from views across
the River Lea or towards the Thames.

41     Other best-practice urban design principles covering entrances into buildings and
navigation around the site have been incorporated into the development. The design standards
appear to provide a commitment that the architecture and landscaping would be finished to a
high standard for future residents.

Routes and phasing

42     Proposed routes throughout the development would have a clear hierarchy and the
designation of one main north-south route through the site will assist in reducing ambiguity.
The scheme will provide an improvement over the extant scheme, which proposed a podium
from which the River Lea bridge crossing to Canning Town would have launched. The result
was that the site levels gradually rose from south to north, with the riverfront pathway
retained at ground level.

43      The main design concern expressed at the pre-application stage regarded the
management of the phasing, and the level of access available for residents both during and
following completion of construction. The London Plan provides support for high density
development only in areas of good accessibility, which includes access to both transport and
services, such as social infrastructure. The existing routes to the site are unattractive,
potentially unsafe and blighted by road overpasses. The routes will be improved as part of this
scheme, both to the north – across the River Lea to Canning Town Station, or along the A13 –
and the south, alongside the flyover and across a roundabout to East India DLR station.
However, only this latter route will be improved within the first phase of the development.
The construction of the bridge Canning Town will not take place until the second phase of
development, which would leave residents of the first phase isolated from Canning Town
station and town centre. Given that phase one’s construction would take place over ten years,
this could leave residents with access only to the DLR at East India for several years. The

                                                                                        page 18
applicant has stated that even if the bridge was provided as part of phase one the second phase
construction programme would not provide a safe or attractive route to the bridge for phase
one residents; the applicant also makes the point that stage I residents would be able to catch a
bus from the base of the site to Canning Town tube station or town centre.

44     The proposed bridge is outlined within the parameter plans and design guidelines; it
would be a lifting bridge capable of allowing river traffic to pass, but at a level that would
enable stair and wheelchair access from either bank. The LTGDC should ensure that the S106
agreement is sufficient to ensure the delivery of the bridge as part of the later phases by this
applicant or any other applicant.

45      The extant permission provided a second bridge link across the railway tract to
Canning Town town centre. The current proposal does not include this second bridge, instead
pedestrians will utilise a currently disused stair and lift entrance into the Canning Town
station underpass, which would only be operational during station operating hours
(approximately 05.00-01.00). Outside these hours, access between Canning Town and the site
would be via a longer route via the A13 overpass and riverbank to the new river bridge, and
the applicant has set out improvements to this route that would provide adequate safety and
amenity conditions. It is disappointing that the second pedestrian link has been removed from
the proposal, however, its is accepted that removal of the podium, the feasibility of crossing the
railway line and the cost of the proposal mean it is not possible to commit to the bridge.

Access
46      The aim of policy 4B.5 of the London Plan an 7.2 of the draft replacement London Plan
is that proposals aim for the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the
minimum) and that the design process has from the outset 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.

47      The applicant has submitted a comprehensive access statement, which details how each
of the proposed uses and buildings will be as accessible. Overall the site will have a good
standard of accessibility. All residential units will comply with the Lifetime Homes criteria and
10% of units will be fully wheelchair accessible. The applicant has also supplied plans detailing
each type of the wheelchair accessible units in the different buildings. The proposed service
capsules in units within building J are particularly inventive and provide genuine opportunities
for modification to suit resident’s needs.

48       There would be 62 blue badge parking spaces provided within the car park (10% of
total), however this would not equate to the number of wheelchair accessible units (170). This
does not therefore reflect best practice standards which require one space per wheelchair unit
and given the currently unknown level of demand for blue badge parking, a condition should be
included on the permission to ensure that the parking management plan includes a mechanism
to ensure that the supply and demand of the blue badge bays are regularly monitored and
provision reviewed. This is to ensure that provision equates to the demand from disabled
residents and visitors and that the bays are effectively enforced, that needs are met and that
disabled people are not prevented from living in this development due to a lack of suitable
parking.

49      The LTGDC should ensure sufficient conditions and clauses within the S106 agreement
are in place to secure the provision of the elements which make up the access strategy such as



                                                                                         page 19
the location of blue badge parking, the accessible changing areas in the leisure facilities and the
lifts on the pedestrian bridge.

Affordable housing and mix of units
50      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. Policies 3.12 and 3.13 of the draft replacement London Plan also
seek to maximise affordable housing provision when negotiating on individual residential and
mixed-use schemes.

51      Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take
account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision.
The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The
results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified

52    Tower Hamlets Council’s Core Strategy sets an overall target of 35-50% affordable
housing for site providing 10 new dwellings or more.

53     In total the development will provide approximately 1,706 residential units of which
20% by habitable room will be affordable. Of the 537 residential units in phase one 38.9% by
habitable room will be affordable and in the later phases 4% by habitable room will be
affordable. As such the majority of affordable housing (85%) will be provided in the first phase
of development. Whilst this raises some concern over the ability of the development to create a
mixed and balanced community, it is acknowledged that the majority of affordable units will be
family units and will be centred around the central amenity space in phase one and will
therefore have a good residential environment. The delivery of the bulk of affordable units will
also help to bring the site forward for development given the difficult market conditions.

54      Tower Hamlets Council and the LTGDC are yet to discuss the most appropriate way to
assess the applicant’s financial appraisal. It is however most likely that an independent
appraisal of the applicant’s financial viability with be commissioned. This approach is strongly
supported and the findings of which should be submitted before the application is referred back
to the Mayor.

55     Given the intention to build this proposal in phases of which phase one is expected to
take ten years an appropriate solution to ensure the proposal provides the maximum reasonable
amount of affordable housing possible would be to assess the viability of the provision of
affordable housing on commencement of each phase. The mechanism for which can be secured
through the section 106 agreement.

56     This option prevents the applicant agreeing to provide a percentage of affordable
housing that they cannot realistically deliver and ensures the proposal complies with London



                                                                                          page 20
Plan policy to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should the
market improve during the lifetime of the permission and construction.

57     The proposal provides a ratio of 87% social rented and 13% shared ownership affordable
housing units. This is not in accordance with the London wide target in the London Plan of
70% social rented and 30% intermediate or the draft replacement London Plan of 60% social
rented and 40% intermediate. It however, closer to the Tower Hamlet Core Strategy target of
80% social rented and 20% intermediate which takes account of the local need for a higher
proportion of social rented units. Tower Hamlets Council should therefore ensure it is
confident that the proposal will meet the housing needs of its residents.

58      The proposal provides a good mix of unit sizes. 45% of the social rented units in phase
one are family units with three bedrooms or more. The applicant has also stated that the later
phases of development have the capacity to provide up to 20% family housing within the
private units. The success of securing a range of unit sizes in the later phases will depend on
the robustness of conditions and the section 106 agreement to secure them as part of the
submission of reserve matters.



Child play space
59     Policy 3D .13 of the London Plan and policy 3.6 of the draft replacement 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 365 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of
10sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace
provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 3650 sq.m. of playspace.

60      The applicant states the proposal provides 4,905 sq.m of child play space across a series
of different playable space typologies. Whilst this space may be genuinely playable it is not
solely designated as child play space and will have other competing functions, such as
circulation space and general amenity space. As such it is not clear how much designated child
play space has been provided. At the pre-application the meeting the applicant was advised to
clearly show what is designated child play space and what is general amenity space, this
information should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor. The
applicant should also show connections to existing local areas of play and recreation in the
vicinity which will supplement the on site offer.

Blue Ribbon Network, flooding and biodiversity
61     Part of the site adjacent to the river edge is designated as a Site of Metropolitan
Importance for Nature Conservation and an area deficient in access to nature and is part of the
Blue Ribbon Network. Policy 4C.11 of the London Plan and 7.30 of the draft replacement
London Plan seeks to protect and improve existing access points to and along the Blue Ribbon
Network. Policy 4C.3 of the London Plan seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the
Blue Ribbon Network. Policies 3D.14 of the London Plan and 7.19 of the draft replacement
London Plan seek new development to have regard to nature conservation and biodiversity.


                                                                                         page 21
Opportunities should be taken to achieve positive gains for conservation through the form and
design of development.

62     The provision of an ecological riverside edge, wildlife garden, 6000 sq.m. of brown roofs
and artificial bird nesting boxes along with the timber baulking to the river wall facade are
therefore strongly supported.

63     As such the opening up of the site and the proposed river walk, extension to the
Olympic “FATwalk” and the nature conservation area along the perimeter of the site is
strongly supported.

64      A Flood Risk Assessment (2007) and an Addendum (2010) has been carried out for the
development proposal. The proposal includes improvements to the floodwalls (as required over
the next 50 years) and new safety features. This would bring the development to over 1.0
metre above the 1 in 1000-year flood level plus climate change impacts (4.86m AOD).
Sufficient provision will also be made to allow for sufficient maintenance access to the river
walls. This is in line with London Plan Policy 4A.13 of the London Plan and policy 5.12 of the
draft replacement London Plan. The site is part of an early warning system and critical access
routes have been identified addressing London Plan Policy 4A.13 and 5.12 of the draft
replacement London Plan. The intertidal terraces are welcomed combining flood risk and
biodiversity improvements.

65     The development site is north of the safeguarded Orchard Wharf. The wharf is
currently vacant but potentially subject to a compulsory purchase order by the Port of London
Authority to facilitate its revitalisation as a wharf. Policy 4C.9 of the London Plan and 7.26 of
the draft replacement London Plan highlights that development next to or opposite
safeguarded wharves should be designed to minimise the potential for conflicts of use and
disturbance. In addition, paragraph 4.166 of the London Plan states that boroughs should
ensure that appropriate highway access to wharves for commercial vehicles is maintained when
considering proposals for development of neighbouring sites.

66     The new river link bridge is welcomed. However, it will be necessary to ensure in
cooperation with British Waterways that the proposals set out in section 9.6.1 of the Design and
Access Statement does not negatively affect current and predicted vessel movements on the
river Lea. London Plan Policy 4C.14 indicates that proposals for new structures should be
accompanied by a risk assessment detailing the extent of their impact on navigation, hydrology
and biodiversity, and mitigation measures proposed to address the adverse impacts identified.

67     The development includes the provision of a riverside walk/edge with many functions
including transport, recreation, biodiversity and flood protection. This is welcomed and in line
with London Plan Policy 4C11 and 7.27 of the draft replacement London Plan. Links to the
surrounding areas are also proposed.

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

Be lean



                                                                                        page 22
69     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 energy efficiency lighting and minimising thermal bridging.

70     The development is estimated to emit 4,575 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per
annum after the application of passive design and energy efficiency measures. Based on the
information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any carbon savings
from energy efficiency alone compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development.

71     Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, the applicant should model, and
commit to, additional measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010
Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should also
provide a table comparing the proposed values for energy efficiency parameters to those used in
the 2010 Building Regulations Notional Building.

Be clean

72      The applicant has investigated the potential to connect to the London Thames Gateway
and Thames Gateway institute for sustainability heat networks. The applicant highlights some
uncertainty regarding the potential to connect at this time. The applicant has however
provided a commitment to provide a heat network connection adjacent to the energy centre
(delivered in phase one) for potential link to their Leamouth South Development subject to
scheme viability.



73      The applicant should provide a schematic showing all building uses connected to a
single site wide network. The schematic should also show how the network will evolve during
phasing including timescales where available. The applicant should confirm that the network
will be supplied from a single energy and provide details of its size and location. The single
network and energy centre should be secured.

74      The applicant is proposing the installation of a 1,357kW thermal output gas fired
combined heat and power unit. The combined heat and power unit has been sized to meet the
domestic hot water profile. The applicant should ensure that the combined heat and power unit
is optimised to provide all the domestic hot water as well as a proportion of the development’s
space heating demand.

75     The development is estimated to emit 3,019 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per
annum after the application of combined heat and power. A reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions of 1,556 tonnes per annum (34%) will be achieved through this second part of the
energy hierarchy.

76     Ground source heat pumps are proposed to provide cooling loads for the leisure centre
in Building K. The applicant should provide further information on the proposed cooling
strategy including both passive and active measures. The applicant should clarify which areas
would require active cooling and provide details on how these will be provided.

Be green




                                                                                      page 23
77      A 150kW ground source heat pump is proposed to provide heating and cooling loads for
the leisure centre in Building K. The applicant should clarify how the proposed ground source
heat pump will operate alongside the proposed combine heat and power plant.

78      The applicant has discounted the use of photovoltaic panels on the basis that the
electricity generation would diminish the potential of the combined heat and power. GLA
officers do not support this view. Combined heat and power and photovoltaic panels are
compatible technologies. The applicant is encouraged to reconsider the use of photovoltaic
panels in the proposed development. Details of the roof area which could accommodate
photovoltaic panels should be provided, along with estimates of the electricity generation and
potential carbon savings.

79    A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 88 tonnes per annum (3%) will be achieved
through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Climate change adaptation
80      The London Plan promotes five principles in policy 4A.9 to promote and support the
most effective adaptation to climate change. These are to minimise overheating and contribute
to heat island effects; minimise solar gain in summer; contribute to flood risk reduction,
including applying sustainable drainage; minimising water use; and protect and enhance green
infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls and water. These
policies have also been carried over into the draft replacement London Plan.

81      The references to sustainable urban drainage system including green and brown roofs
and storm water retention area are welcomed and in line with London Plan policy 4A.14 and
policy 5.13 and 5.11 of the draft replacement London Plan. The discharging of surface water
directly into the River Lea is also welcomed. However, there appears to be no specific reference
to the use of porous materials for the paths through the development, which could also
contribute to a reduction of surface water run-off.

Comments from Transport for London
Car parking

82      The final completed scheme will provide 629 spaces for the 1,706 units (equating to an
overall provision of 0.4 spaces per unit). A further 37 spaces will be provided for the remaining
community, retail and office uses. This level of car parking is within the maximum standards
set out in the London Plan Policy 3C.21 ‘Parking Strategy’ and draft replacement policy 6.13
‘Parking’. 10% of all car parking is proposed to be allocated as dedicated blue-badge holder
spaces, and further details are requested regarding the location of these parking bays, to ensure
that they are in close proximity to building entrances.

83      The provision of 10 car club spaces is welcomed, as is the commitment to providing
electric vehicle charging facilities in line with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13
‘Parking’. Both should be secured by the borough through a section 106 agreement, and should
be managed through the travel plan. TfL welcomes the commitment to producing a parking
management plan, which should also be secured through planning condition in consultation
with TfL.

Highway alterations



                                                                                        page 24
84      TfL notes that a number of alterations to the highway are proposed, at the A1020
Lower Lea Crossing and at the Leamouth Roundabout, to allow for emergency vehicles to
access to the site and to improve the pedestrian environment. The applicant also proposes to
widen the Leamouth roundabout on its western side to provide additional capacity for vehicles
heading to the Blackwall Tunnel and subsequently ease traffic flow. Although these works
primarily affect borough roads, formal notifications and approval may be needed for any
highway works affecting the westerns slip roads to the roundabout.

85     The highway modelling for the Leamouth Roundabout assumes that the northern arm
would be signalised. TfL however considers that this will result in unacceptable traffic queuing
back to the A13. To ensure the smooth flow of traffic on the roundabout and adjoining roads,
such highway proposal needs to be reconsidered, as these are unlikely to receive TfL’s approval
at implementation stage.

86      TfL understands that the pedestrian improvements to the links to East India DLR
station are expected to be funded as part of the ‘FATwalk’ proposals developed by LTGDC. As
these improvements are key to unlocking the site to the south and necessary to guarantee
satisfactory access between the first phase of development and the station, TfL expects the
developer to fully fund and implement the pedestrian and cycle facilities over the Lower Lea
Crossing, should LTGDC not bring them to fruition. TfL expects these facilities to be in place
prior to the commencement of the first phase of development, and invites further discussion
with all interested parties to agree their implementation.

TfL traffic control centre

87     In order to ensure the continued operation during construction of the TfL Traffic
Control Centre and Depot on Orchard Place, the section 106 agreement should include an
obligation for it to be maintained during any proposed construction and operational periods
including ensuring unimpeded access to and from the centre.

Connectivity

88      The Leamouth Peninsula is currently isolated from surrounding neighbourhoods and
suffers from inadequate levels of pedestrian accessibility and permeability. TfL requires
assurance that measures secured with the development proposals will ensure its integration
with the wider area. Access to public transport is also currently very poor, particularly
considering the pedestrian links between the site and East India DLR station. The proposed
development will provide enhanced pedestrian and cycle routes across the A1020 Lower Lea
Crossing as mentioned above, a pedestrian/cycle bridge link providing direct access to
Canning Town station, and improvements to the riverside footpaths along either side of the
River Lea. The bridge link is crucial to improve the site’s accessibility and to justify the
proposed scale and density, and is expected to boost the public transport accessibility level of
the northern section of the site from 1 to 6.

89      The previously approved scheme for this site included a bridge link to Canning Town
station and a second bridge across the DLR/London Underground rail tracks to the bus
station area. This arrangement was welcomed by TfL as it ensured convenient and direct
access to the Canning Town area without relying on access through the station. The current
proposal does not include provision for direct twenty-four hour access to Canning Town.
During the hours when the station is closed, therefore, those wishing to access Canning Town
will use the enhanced riverside walkway, and pass back the A13 East India Dock Road. Before
the proposed access arrangements can be considered satisfactory and consistent with London
Plan Policy 3C.1 ‘Integrating Transport and Development’, TfL requires further discussions
                                                                                         page 25
with the applicant to discuss possible ways of enhancing and improving this aspect of the site’s
connectivity, given the above constraints.

90      Given the above site constraints, it is reasonable to assume that travel demand from the
first phase of the proposed development will be focused towards the southern end of the
peninsula. Nevertheless, the subsequent phases of development will be dependent on the
delivery of the proposed bridge connection to Canning Town. Therefore, TfL expects the
applicant to commit to providing the footbridge a part of the development of the second phase
of the masterplan, and this should be reflected in the section 106 legal agreement.

Canning Town Station

91     At the pre-application meetings and connectivity workshops held with the applicant,
opportunities for creating twenty four hour access through Canning Town station have been
explored. The applicant is aware that, as the closure of the underground network is required
for routine maintenance and engineering, access through the station outside existing station
opening hours is not possible.

92      TfL considers that the capacity of the Bow Creek entrance/exit (the ‘rotunda’) is likely
to be sufficient to accommodate the expected trips entering and exiting the station.
Nevertheless, a significant level of work is required to re-open and maintain its operation.
These station works will need to be completed in accordance with all relevant DLR and
London Underground requirements and guidelines. Furthermore, TfL requires an
implementation and funding plan for the station works to be submitted to, and agreed with,
TfL and the local planning authority prior to the commencement of works. The plan should
take into account works on the bridge as well as planned works by DLR and London
Underground. All station works need to be fully funded by the developer and completed prior
to delivery of the second phase of the proposed development. Details of the management and
security arrangements affected by the station works will also need to be agreed prior to the
commencement of works. Additional costs incurred as a result of opening and operating the
station entrance should be met by the developer.

93      All of the above requirements should be fully reflected in any planning permission, as
well as a separate legal agreement between the applicant and affected parties. TfL expects
continued involvement with regard to the detailed design aspects of the bridge links,
particularly the integration with TfL/DLR and London Underground Limited ownerships and
infrastructure.

East India DLR

94      TfL anticipates that demand from this development will result in significant pressure on
East India DLR station, especially from the first development phase. DLR has a programme of
works to improve the public realm area close to East India station, which is likely to cost in the
region of £500,000. In order to mitigate the impact of this additional demand, TfL requests
that a contribution towards these improvements to the station forecourt area is secured to
enhance pedestrian connections in accordance with Policy 3C.9 ‘Increasing the capacity, quality
and integration of public transport to meet London’s needs’, 3C.21 of the London Plan
‘Improving conditions for walking’, and draft replacement Policy 6.10 ‘Walking’, and welcomes
further discussion in this respect. TfL also suggests that the developer should allow up to
£40,000 towards the installation of DAISY screens in the communal areas of the proposed
development, as well as on the approach to the link bridge.



                                                                                         page 26
95     Given the height and location of the proposed buildings, the section 106 agreement
should include an obligation to test the impact of the proposed buildings on DLR’s radio
communications. Should a signal booster be required to mitigate this impact, the cost of this
should be borne by the applicant.

Bus Services

96      As predicted in the applicant’s transport assessment, the first phase of the development
will place a significant demand on bus services, with only the later phases of the development
benefiting from the proposed pedestrian link to Canning Town station. The development of
phase one will therefore necessitate enhanced bus service provision along the A1020 Lower Lea
Crossing, possibly by extending one of the bus services that currently terminate at Canning
Town. In line with London Plan policy 3C.2 ‘Matching development to transport capacity’,
and draft replacement Policy 6.1 ‘Strategic approach’, TfL therefore requests a contribution
towards two extra vehicles, which will be required for any route that is extended. At £220,000
per vehicle, over a period of five years, the total cost for phase one would be £2.2 million,
which should be paid to TfL upon commencement of the first development phase. TfL
considers that this initial phase will not be adequately accessible unless a contribution is paid to
enable bus services to better connect the site.

97     Similarly, the later phases of the development will also require bus service
enhancements to provide the necessary additional capacity, either on services operating from
Canning Town bus station, or those along the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing. This is very likely
to equate to a requirement for an extra vehicle, over a period of five years, for which the
developer is requested to contribute to an additional £1.1 million.

Bus infrastructure

98      To facilitate the above service improvements, the applicant has proposed two bus stands
on the slip road leading to the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing, and a bus stop on the underpass
beneath the Lower Lea Crossing. These facilities are essential to the development’s
accessibility, and TfL expects these to be in place prior to the development of the first phase of
development. TfL does, however, have concerns that pedestrian access and passenger ambience
at the particular locations proposed is poor, and could discourage their use. TfL welcomes
further discussions with the applicant to agree a suitable location for the necessary facilities,
and any associated pedestrian realm improvements particularly in light of London Plan Policy
3C.10 ‘Public Transport Security’.

99     Further details of the layout and accessibility of the stands and stops, including
drawings which show the swept paths of bus movements will also be required. The full cost of
providing bus stop flags, posts and shelters should be met by the developer, as should the
purchase, installation and operational costs of a bus driver toilet facility.

Travel planning

100 The applicant has submitted a framework travel plan for the development site, which is
welcomed in line with London Plan Policy 3C.1. Additional details are however required,
including site-specific objectives and travel plan management. Objectives have been included
for both residents and workplaces, but these are not specific to the context of the site. Initial
targets have also been set, but given the low base level of expected car use, the headline targets
for the site should be focused on reducing the impact on the public transport network during
peak hours.


                                                                                          page 27
101 The phasing must be taken into account within the targets and the monitoring of the
plan, and the trigger points for undertaking the initial travel survey should also be adjusted to
reflect the proposed phasing. Reference must be made to the development of individual travel
plans specific to each occupier, for subsequent approval.

102 As requested at pre-application stage, an outline delivery and service plan has been
provided, which is welcomed. The applicant has also committed to producing a construction
logistics plan upon refining the details of the outline scheme. This will consider the routing of
construction vehicles and the use of the River Thames for the transportation of aggregates, as
well as other construction best practice. TfL expects the delivery service plan and construction
logistics plan to be secured by the local planning authority through a section 106 agreement.

Local planning authority’s position
103 The application is likely to be reviewed by Tower Hamlets Council’s planning
committee in November 2010.

Legal considerations
104 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.

Financial considerations
105    There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion
106 London Plan policies on are relevant to this application. The application complies with
some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:
    Principle of use: London Plan policies support the provision of the proposed uses and
     the principal of a mixed-use residential-led development has been established in the
     2007 extant permission. As such the proposed redevelopment complies with London
     Plan policy.

    Urban design: The proposal provides an overall commitment to high quality buildings
     and public realm. As such the proposal complies with the design policies of the London
     Plan.

      Access: Overall the site will have a good standard of accessibility. All residential units
       will comply with the Lifetime Homes criteria and 10% of units will be fully wheelchair
       accessible. However, the proposal does not provide one blue badge parking space per
       wheelchair accessible unit. As such the proposal does not comply with best practice and
       policy 4B.5 of the London Plan.
                                                                                         page 28
      Affordable housing: The independent assessment has not been submitted. As such it is
       not possible to ascertain whether the proposal complies with London Plan policy 3A.9
       and 3A.10.
      Child play space: It is not clear from the plans how much designated child play space is
       being provided. As such it is not possible to assess whether the proposal complies with
       policy 3D.13 of the London Plan.

      Blue Ribbon Network and biodiversity: The opening up of the site and the proposed
       river walk, extension to the Olympic fat walk, nature conservation area and other
       biodiversity measures are strongly supported. The proposal also includes sufficient
       flood improvements to the floodwalls and new safety features. As such the proposal
       complies with London Plan policies 3D.14, 4C.11 and 4A.13.

      Climate change mitigation: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy
       in Policy 4A.1. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as
       a whole and to verify carbon dioxide savings in principle. However, further clarification
       is required in relation to specific issues.

      Climate change adaptation: The proposal includes a good sustainable urban drainage
       including green and brown roofs with direct discharging of surface water into the
       Rover Lea. As such the proposal complies with London Plan policies on climate change
       adaptation.

      Transport: TfL requires further discussions with the applicant to discuss possible ways
       of enhancing and improving this aspect of the site’s connectivity, given the above
       constraints. Further information and discussion is required on the provision of blue
       badge parking bays, the signalising the northern arm of the Leamouth roundabout, the
       implementation and funding plan for the Canning Town station works and the travel
       plan. Car club and electric parking points, the provision of the “FATwalk”, the
       continued operation of the TfL Traffic Control Centre, the provision of the footbridge
       as part of the second phase, an obligation to test the impact of the proposed building
       heights on the DLR’s radio communications, the provision of two bus stand in place
       prior to the development of the first phase, submission of a delivery and service plan
       and construction logistic plan should be secured through legal agreement.
       Contributions towards improving the East India Station forecourt area, up to £40,000
       towards the installation of DAISY screens, £3.3 million towards extra vehicles needed
       to extend bus routes are required to ensure the application complies with the London
       Plan policies on Transport.

107    On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

108 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and
could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:
      Access: A condition should be included on the permission to ensure that the parking
       management plan includes a mechanism to ensure that the supply and demand of the
       blue badge bays are regularly monitored and provision reviewed
      Affordable housing: The independent appraisal should be submitted and a mechanism
       for securing phased viability assessments should be investigated before the application
       is referred back to the Mayor.


                                                                                       page 29
      Child play space: A plan clearly showing what is designated child play space and what
       is general amenity space should be submitted before the application is referred back to
       the Mayor. The applicant should also show connections to existing local areas of play
       and recreation in the vicinity which will supplement the on site offer.

    Climate change mitigation: The applicant should model, and commit to, additional
     measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010 Building
     Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone. Provide a table comparing the
     proposed values for energy efficiency parameters to those used in the 2010 Building
     Regulations Notional Building. Provide a schematic showing all building uses
     connected to a single site wide network. Confirm that the network will be supplied from
     a single energy and provide details of its size and location. The single network and
     energy centre should be secured by condition. The applicant should ensure that the
     combined heat and power unit is optimised to provide all the domestic hot water as well
     as a proportion of the development’s space heating demand. Provide further information
     on the proposed cooling strategy including both passive and active measures. Clarify
     which areas would require active cooling and provide details on how these will be
     provided. Clarify how the proposed ground source heat pump will operate alongside the
     proposed combine heat and power plant. Reconsider the use of photovoltaic panels in
     the proposed development. Details of the roof area which could accommodate
     photovoltaic panels should be provided, along with estimates of the electricity
     generation and potential carbon savings. The additional information requested should
     be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

      Transport: The additional information, discussions and contributions requested above
       should be resolved before the application is referred back to the Mayor.




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
Kim Hoffman, Case Officer
020 7983 6589 email kim.hoffman@london.gov.uk




                                                                                      page 30

								
To top