40 marsh wall report by S7nKS4

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 22

									                                                                 planning report 2421/02
                                                                                28 April 2010

                                        40 Marsh Wall, Isle of Dogs
                                           in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
                                               planning application no. PA/09/01220


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
Erection of a 39-storey building (equivalent of 40-storeys on Manilla Street) with three-level
basement, comprising a 305-bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel
facilities including restaurants, leisure, conference and serviced offices; together with plant
and landscaping proposals. A new taxi drop-off on Marsh Wall is also proposed.

The applicant
The applicant is Marsh Wall Chelsea LLP, and the architect is BUJ Architects.

Strategic issues
Tower Hamlets Council has resolved to refuse permission for this application. The Mayor
must consider whether the application warrants a direction to take over determination of the
application under Article 7 of the Mayor of London Order 2008.

Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report
and the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the Mayor
to intervene in this particular case and therefore no basis to issue a direction under Article 7
of the Order 2008.

Should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted the applicant
should have regard to the following matters: urban design, transport, inclusive design, and
climate change as detailed in this report.

Recommendation
That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case
itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to
direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context
1      On 23 July 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets
Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the
above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C of the
Schedule to the Order 2008:

                                                                                          page 1
       “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…(c) the building is more
        than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

2       On 26 August 2009 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2421/01, and
subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council that the application did not comply with the
London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 88 of the above-mentioned report but that
the possible remedies set out in the same paragraph 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 16 March 2010
Tower Hamlets Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the application and on 12
April 2010 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 issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning
authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The
Mayor has until 28 April 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4       The Council’s draft decision notice includes the following three reasons for refusal:

       The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height and bulk, would appear out of
        character with the surrounding area. As a result, it is considered that the proposal would be out
        of keeping with the existing urban form. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 4B.1, 4B.8,
        4B.9, and 4B.10 of The London Plan 2008, policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3 of the Unitary
        Development Plan (1998) and policies CP48, DEV1, DEV2, DEV27 and IOD21 of the
        Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007 which seek to ensure development and tall buildings
        in particular are of an appropriate design, height, scale and mass.

       The proposed development would result in unacceptable traffic and parking impacts and as such
        is contrary to Policies 2A.1, 3A.7, 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.19, 3C.20 of The London Plan (Consolidated
        2008), PPS1, PPG13, Policy ST25, ST28, ST30, T16, T18, T19, T21 of the LBTH UDP
        1998, Policies DEV17, DEV18, DEV19 of the LBTH IPG 2007 which seek to ensure the
        proposal does not impact on the local road system. The coach parking facilities proposed in the
        applications are considered inadequate.

       The planning obligations are considered inadequate to mitigate against the impact of the
        development. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Policy DEV4 of the
        adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (1998) which seeks to secure appropriate
        planning obligations which are reasonably related to the scale and nature of the proposed
        development and are necessary for the development to proceed.

5       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.

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




                                                                                                  page 2
Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority
Policy test guidance GOL Circular 1/2008

7      The initial policy test regarding the Mayor’s power to take over and determine
applications referred under categories 1 and 2 of the schedule to the Order is a decision about
who should have jurisdiction over the application rather than whether planning permission
should ultimately be granted or refused.

8       The policy test consists of the following three parts, all of which must be met in order
for the Mayor to take over the application:

a)     significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan;

b)     significant effects on one or more borough; and

c)     sound planning reasons for his intervention.

9       Parts (a) and (b) of the test identify the impact an application would have on the Mayor’s
policies and the geographical extent of the impact, whilst part (c) deals with the reasons for the
Mayor’s intervention, having regard to the Council’s draft decision on the application. These
tests are intended to ensure that the Mayor can only intervene in the most important cases.

10      This report considers the extent to which the policy tests under Article 7(1) apply in
this case and whether, therefore, the Mayor should direct that he is to be the local planning
authority and apply the tests set out under Article 7(3) of the Order 2008.

Policy test 7(1) (a): Significant impact on the implementation of the London
Plan
11      It is noted that the provision of a 132-bedroom hotel would help implement the Mayor’s
Tourism Vision to achieve 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by 2026. However, this
proposal is for a relatively modest quantum of rooms, and refusal would not have a significant
impact on the implementation of the London Plan for the Mayor to direct that he is to be the
local planning authority.

Policy test 7(1) (b): Significant effects on more than one Borough
12       There are no significant effects on more than one borough because geographically the
site is located a significant distance from neighbouring borough boundaries, and in policy
terms, refusal of a proposed hotel-led use on this site would not prejudice London’s other
boroughs in implementing the Mayor’s strategic policies.

Policy test 7(1)(c): Sound planning reasons for intervening
13      Notwithstanding parts a) and b), part (c) of the policy test is whether the Mayor
considers there to be sound planning reasons to intervene. Having regard to the details of
the proposal and the Council’s draft reasons for refusal, together with the outstanding issues
from stage one described in paragraphs below, there are no sound planning reasons to
intervene in this case.

14      In order for the Mayor to issue a direction that he is to be the local planning authority,
all relevant policy tests must be met. None of the policy tests have not been met, therefore
there is no basis to issue a direction under Article 7.


                                                                                           page 3
Issues outstanding
15     Notwithstanding the above, should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised
application submitted the applicant should have regard to the following matters considered
below.

Urban Design

16      At the initial consultation stage, the Mayor advised that the overall design quality was
sufficiently high, but that further information was required to ensure that the building would
not impact upon strategic views, and that the building materials would be of a high quality.
Whilst it was noted that in the context of other approved buildings, that the impact of the
building would be negligible, an assessment of views from Greenwich Park and London Bridge
were sought. The applicant has subsequently produced a series of additional views from
Greenwich Park towards St Paul’s Cathedral which show that the building would form part of
the context of existing and consented towers. Views from London Bridge were also sought,
but these have not been provided.

17     Concern was also raised with regard the detailed design of the elevations of the tower
being too simplistic and requiring more detail, in particular the materials palette, to provide
comfort the building will have a high quality appearance that enhances the skyline. The
applicant has not investigated this request and therefore the proposal remains contrary to
London Plan policy 4B.10.

18     Notwithstanding the refusal on design grounds, should the application be the subject of
an appeal or revised application, the additional views from London Bridge should be provided
and there should be further detail on the materials palette.

19      Concern was also expressed about way that level changes have been addressed across
the site, partly caused by the fact that the scheme did not incorporate the neighbouring site. In
particular, the position of the external lift was also questionable and details of the level change
between Marsh Wall and Manila Street was requested. In this respect the applicant has
provided a rationale for its positioning, stating that it is well lit, sheltered and overlooked,
providing a safe and secure environment for potential users. Another issue related to a flight of
stairs adjoining the site to the west, which address the level change between Marsh Wall and
Cuba Street. Whilst the applicant has attempted to negotiate with the owner, these discussions
have been unsuccessful. Whilst the applicant’s endeavours are acknowledged, a revised scheme
should seek to improve on the situation as far as possible.

Inclusive design and accessibility

20      At consultation stage further details were requested to overcome some inclusive access
concerns. The most fundamental concern related to the stairs discussed above, given the
importance in addressing the level change between Marsh Wall and Cuba Street. If the stairs
were included within the scheme then the level change could be better addressed for inclusive
design purposes. Further drawings and detail was requested in relation to the access from
Manilla Street up to the main hotel podium level on Marsh Wall and the access statement
should give a more robust consideration of alternative blue badge parking locations. These
details have not been provided and therefore the application remains contrary to London Plan
policy 4B.5.

21     At the initial consultation stage it was noted that whilst the scheme incorporated an
acceptable number of wheelchair accessible and wheelchair adaptable hotel rooms, there were

                                                                                           page 4
some design changes requested in relation to revolving doors, together with details regarding
car parking numbers and parking arrangements.

22      The officer’s report sought to address the points raised by imposing conditions
requiring entrances to be as inclusive as possible and securing 10% of rooms as accessible.
There remains an outstanding concern about the use of revolving doors, although the applicant
has advised that there would be accessible doors either side. Subject to the dimensions and
level access being appropriate, this addresses the concerns raised at Stage 1.



Climate change

23     It was noted at consultation stage that, whilst a robust approach to energy efficiency
and renewable energy had been adopted, further information was necessary to ensure
compliance with the London Plan. This related to baseline emissions, district heating, carbon
savings, CHP options, cooling, and space available for photovoltaics.

24      In terms of sustainable design and construction further information was required in
relation to green roofs and sustainable urban drainage.

25      The applicant sought to address the points raised, and accordingly in Tower Hamlets
officer’s report to Planning Committee, a number of conditions were suggested including
prioritising connection to the Barkantine heat network. Conditions were also suggested,
requiring the submission of further details regarding the heating and cooling systems to be
used, including internal building heating and cooling systems should this arise. Should the
application be the subject of an appeal or a future application, it would be appropriate for
estimates of the carbon savings from connecting to Barkantine and using dock water/free
cooling to be provided. Detailed plans of brown/green roofs would also be expected.

Comments from Transport for London

26      At Stage 1 TfL welcomed the car free nature of the scheme through removing
occupant’s rights to apply for on-street parking permits; this was subsequently secured by
condition in the officer’s report. It was stated at Stage 1, that optimally two car parking spaces
for disabled users should be provided however, as the development is not proposing any off-
street parking, TfL would consider it acceptable to provide one such space only. The proposed
level of cycle parking is in line with TfL’s Cycle Parking Standards.

27      TfL welcomed the proposals for the provision of a coach and taxi lay-by, and was
satisfied with the condition to locate this outside of either number 30 or 40 Marsh Wall. TfL
however notes that the preferred location outside of number 40 Marsh Wall would necessitate
the relocation of a Bus Stop. Although TfL was satisfied with the contribution of £50,000 to
fund this, agreement on the proposed location remains outstanding and should be agreed with
TfL London Buses.

28      The applicant had committed to install real time information at the development
utilising the DLR DAISY system through a £20,000 contribution secured as part of the
Section 106 agreement, and this was to be welcomed. A contribution to secure the installation
of a new Olympic Gate and signage for the Thames Pathway was also proposed, and would be
supported. Tower Hamlet’s officers report to Committee also proposed obligations and
planning conditions to secure footway and carriageway works in the vicinity of the site,
servicing and construction management plans and a full travel plan, which are also supported.



                                                                                          page 5
29     It is noted that Tower Hamlets Council has refused the planning application on traffic
and parking grounds. This does not reflect the position of Transport for London in relation to
the application, but should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application be
submitted, the relocation of a bus stop should be agreed, as this matter remains outstanding.

30      Additionally, it is noted that under the Draft SPG, ‘Using planning obligations to help
fund Crossrail’, any future application would necessitate a Crossrail payment would be required
either on appeal or re-submission, due to the fact that the site falls within a one kilometre radii
around station entrances. Based on the current floorspace figures expressed in GIA, a
contribution of £1,558,902 would be sought. Confirmation of the proposed floorspace figures
will therefore be necessary to enable an appropriate settlement to be reached.

Response to consultation
31     The application was advertised by site and press notices and consultation letters, which
were sent to 460 neighbouring properties.

32     A total of four replies were received as a result of the consultation process

33     The concerns raised by objectors relate to:

          The number of hotels in the area has destroyed the local character.
          The proposed building will dramatically change the skyline of the area.
          The proposed development will not be accessible to local residents.
          There are no benefits to local residents.
          The loss of the employment agency will be detrimental to local residents.
          The area needs smaller homes rather than hotels.
          Coaches servicing the development would exacerbate parking problems.

34     Other statutory consultees responded as follows:

       CABE: Do not support the scheme in the absence of strategic policy guidance for the
       area. The scheme does not satisfy the stringent quality requirements expected of a tall
       building in this location. The internal layout and energy efficiency/sustainability also
       raise concerns.

       English Heritage: No objections.

       Environment Agency: No objections, subject to imposition of conditions regarding
       flood risk, contamination, piling and protection of water quality. Such conditions were
       imposed by Tower Hamlets Council in their officer’s report to Committee.

       London Borough of Greenwich: Concern is raised in relation to the height and
       elevational treatment of the building and the impact upon panoramic views from
       Greenwich Park.

       London City Airport: No objection subject to the imposition of an informative
       regarding crane and scaffolding use. Such an informative was imposed by the Tower
       Hamlets Council in their officers report to Committee.

       Natural England: Request introduction of brown roofs for wildlife, which it is noted
       was included as a condition in the officer’s report.

       Thames Water: No comments.

                                                                                           page 6
       London Underground: No comments.

       Maritime Greenwich: Concerned that the cluster of tall buildings at Canary Wharf
       may become a wall of towers.

35      In relation to the objections raised by local residents, matters relating to the principle of
a hotel, views, and transport have been dealt with in this and the previous report.

36     Matters relating to local infrastructure are not in this instance strategic planning
matters and have been assessed by Tower Hamlets Council in their committee report.
Conditions and section 106 planning obligations were suggested by officers in their report
Committee.

Legal considerations
37      Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is
to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any
connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. If the
Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the
matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also
have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to
issue a direction under Article 7.

Financial considerations
38      Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a
representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible
for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and
determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so).

Conclusion
39      Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee
report and the Council’s draft decision notice there are no sound planning reasons for the
Mayor to intervene in this particular case and therefore no basis to issue a direction under
Article 7 of the Order 2008.

40     Should the scheme be considered at appeal or a revised application submitted the
applicant should have regard to the points raised above in relation to energy, transport, design,
views and inclusive access.




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
Conor McDonagh, Case Officer

                                                                                            page 7
020 7983 6536 email conor.mcdonagh@london.gov.uk




                                                   page 8
                                                                 planning report 2421/01
                                                                            26 August 2009

                                       40 Marsh Wall, Isle of Dogs
                                                                  Tower Hamlets Council
                                              Planning application no. PA/09/01220


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

Erection of a 39-storey building (equivalent of 40-storeys on Manilla Street) with three-level
basement, comprising a 305-bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel
facilities including restaurants, leisure, conference and serviced offices; together with plant
and landscaping proposals. A new taxi drop-off on Marsh Wall is also proposed.


The applicant
The applicant is Marsh Wall Chelsea LLP, and the architect is BUJ Architects.

Strategic issues
The scheme proposes a tall building within the Millennium Quarter area of the Isle of Dogs.
The proposed hotel use will complement the internationally important business area at
Canary Wharf and is generally supported. This report raises issues on design, land use,
inclusive design, transport and climate change which should be addressed before the
application is referred back to the Mayor for a decision.

Recommendation
That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in
strategic planning terms the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the
reasons set out in paragraph 88 of this report. This paragraph also sets out possible remedies.




                                                                                         page 9
Context
41     On 23 July 2009 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets
Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the
above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 2 September 2009 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.

42      The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008,
“Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…(c) the building is more than 30
metres high and is outside the City of London”.

43       Once Tower Hamlets Council 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; take it over for his
own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

44      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.

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

Site description
46     The 0.11-hectare, triangular shaped site is located on the south side of Marsh Wall
within the Isle of Dogs. The site is bound to the north by Marsh Wall, Cuba Street to the west
and Manilla Street to the south. There is a notable difference in levels between Marsh Wall
and Manilla Street.

47     The site contains an existing five-storey office building dating back to the early 1990s.
This building has an almost 100% site coverage, and contains 4,066 sq.m. of office floorspace.

48     Marsh Wall runs from Westferry Circus in the north west of the Isle of Dogs through
to Preston Road in the east. On the north side of Marsh Wall is the 14-storey Britannia
International Hotel and a new development under construction called Arrowhead Quay that
comprises a part 16/part 26-storey building for commercial uses.

49     The site is to the south east of ‘The Landmark’ development (22 Marsh Wall) that is
currently under construction. This development, once complete, will comprise four buildings,
including two eight-storey buildings and two towers of 30 and 44-storeys.

50     To the immediate north-west is 30 Marsh Wall, which is a building/site similar to the
subject site. It also contains a modern office building on a triangular shaped site fronting on to
Marsh Wall.

51      The immediate area and that of the nearby Millennium Quarter are undergoing a phase
of rapid change and growth, with a general move away from low scale buildings with
commercial uses to that of much larger-scale buildings that accommodate predominately
residential-led development with some commercial accommodation.


                                                                                             page 10
52      The majority of roads in the vicinity of the site are borough controlled roads. There are
a total of five bus services within 400 metres of the site. South Quay DLR station is within
acceptable walking distance of the site and provides services southbound towards Lewisham
and Northbound towards Bank and Stratford. The site is therefore within a highly accessible
location with a public transport accessibility level of 5, out of a range of 1 to 6 where 1
represents the lowest accessibility level.



Details of the proposal
53      The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building. A replacement 39-storey
hotel is proposed onto Marsh Wall, while on the Manilla Street the proposed building is 41-
storeys including a level of plant screening a top the building. The height of building is 127.15
AOD.

54     The hotel is described as a boutique hotel and will contain 305 bedrooms. Ancillary
serviced offices, conference rooms, restaurants/cafe/bars and leisure facilities will be provided.
It appears only one car parking space is to be provided, a blue badge space, accessible from
Manilla Street.

55       The proposed floor area can be summarised as follows:

             Use             Net internal area sq.m   Gross internal area sq.m   Gross external area sq.m

        Hotel rooms                  7,164                    17,180                     19,099

       Serviced offices               762                       787                        927

     Conference facilities            394                       454                        534

     Restaurant/bar/cafe             1,041                     1,088                      1,362

 Business lounge, gym and             455
   swimming poor/spa

          TOTAL                      9,816                    19,509                     21,922



56     The proposed building is roughly rectangular at ground floor level, and to be located on
the south eastern portion of the site with an area of landscaping which sets the building away
from Marsh Wall. At third floor the building has a projection towards Marsh Wall, which
creates a double height overhang at ground floor level, while the building form alters again at
eighth floor level with the use of setbacks to the east and west.

Case history
57   There is no relevant planning history. The proposal was the subject to of the formal
GLA pre-application process in April 2009.

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


                                                                                                 page 11
 Urban design                    London Plan; PPS1
 Tall buildings/views            London Plan; View Management Framework SPG, draft Revised
                                  View Management Framework SPG
 Mix of uses                     London Plan
 Tourism/leisure                 London Plan; Managing the Night Time Economy BPG; Good
                                  Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism (DCLG)
 Employment                      London Plan; PPG4; draft PPS4
 Access                          London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive
                                  environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a
                                  good practice guide (ODPM)
 Sustainable development         London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change
                                  Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy
                                  Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
 Transport                       London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for
                                  Transport Functions SPG
 Parking                         London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

59     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 1998 Tower Hamlets Unitary Development
Plan (saved policies) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

60     In October 2007 the Secretary of State directed Tower Hamlets Council to withdraw
the submitted Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Development Control development plan
documents and the associated Area Action Plans. The Council has since adopted the
withdrawn documents as ‘Interim planning guidance for the purposes of development control’.
The Council has also recently produced a ‘Core Strategy - Options and Alternatives for Places’
document which is currently undergoing public consultation. These documents, though of
limited weight, are relevant material considerations.

Urban design
61       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
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 and
views.

62      London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, 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.

63      At 39/40 storeys high, this proposal for a tall building should be carefully assessed. In
this instance, the impact of the proposal in long views; the local context; quality of the
architecture and the public realm will be considered.

Strategic views


                                                                                         page 12
64      London Plan policies 4B.11 to 4B.15 set out the strategic approach to the protection and
enhancement of London’s rich built heritage. The proposed building falls within the panoramic
view from Greenwich Park towards St Paul’s Cathedral as protected within view 5A.1 and 5A.2
of the London View Management Framework and the consultation draft. The proposed
building would sit within the Canary Wharf cluster, which is central within the view 5A.1.
The proposal is not specifically within the Protected Vista 5A.2 but forms part of the wider
panorama.

65       London Plan policies 4B.16 to 4B.18 set out the strategic approach to the management
of strategically important views. London Plan Policy 4B.18 states that “The Mayor will and
boroughs should normally refuse or direct refusal of all development within the landmark viewing
corridors above threshold heights (see Policy 4B.17), and development within landmark background and
lateral assessment areas, which fails to preserve or enhance the ability to recognise and appreciate
landmark buildings.” The submitted visual impact assessment has specifically assessed the
proposal against view 5A.1 of the London View Management Framework. This illustrates that
the proposal will visible in 5A.1, viewed along side the ‘The Landmark’ development, but off to
the west of the main Canary Wharf cluster. Within cumulative impact assessment that shows
the very many consented towers in the area, the impact of this proposal would be negligible in
terms of the impact on the skyline.

66     No assessment against 5A.2 (also from Greenwich Park) nor the view from London
Bridge towards Tower Bridge have been submitted. These should be submitted before the
application is referred back to the Mayor for a decision.



The local context

67      The townscape assessment includes various local views of the proposed development.
These scope of views provided is comprehensive. For the most part, the proposed building will
appear amongst a skyline of other tall buildings and given its relatively slender built form, the
proposal will not have a negative impact on views of the Canary Wharf or the wider Isle of
Dogs. However, in the local setting there proposed tower will be significantly larger than
nearby existing buildings such as those on the corners of Westferry Road and Manilla
Street/Westferry and Cuba Street. Within this context, the contrast between the two-three
storey existing buildings and the proposed 39 –storey buildings is marked, although not
unusual within the emerging townscape of this area. This issue is particularly evident in the
relationship between the ‘Rogue Trader’ public house and the under construction ‘The
Landmark’ and the consented City Pride redevelopment and the existing building on the
opposite side of Westferry Road.

Architecture

68      The applicant describes the building as consisting of three elements. The first element
at the lower levels of building, is a nine-storey plinth. The varied yellow glass ‘feature’ wall of
the plinth and the cantilever built form are both welcomed and are bold additions that add
interest to the building.

69     The second and third elements of the building form the tower element, one of which is
described as having an arced form that rests on two large crossed raked concrete columns.
The curved form will be accentuated by use of aluminium fins. The other is portion of the
tower has stronger vertical emphasis. This building arrangement is logical and should sit
comfortably on the site. However, there is a slight concern the elevations of the tower are a

                                                                                           page 13
little too simplistic and more detail on the elevations is required, in particular the materials
palette, to provide comfort the building will have a high quality appearance that enhances the
skyline.

70     As mentioned, the proposed tower has a relatively slender built form when viewed in
long views, which is supported.



Figures 2: images from Marsh Wall Chelsea LLP ‘Townscape & visual impact assessment’ July 2009. Long views
of the proposal.

Public realm

71       The local context is one of high-density development with a mix of uses and with few
public open spaces. The development builds on this context. The proposed site layout
represents a significant improvement to the existing office building which has an almost 100%
site coverage and a building line hard against Marsh Wall. In the existing setting there is no
relief from the relatively unpleasant pedestrian environment along this road.

72      The main area of public realm is predominately hard landscaping, which will provide
access along the site, an entrance to the hotel and external seating and cafe seating areas at
the either end of the site. The hard landscaping materials are predominantly granite and
Irish Blue Limestone, which will create a high quality finish, the use of such materials should
be secured by condition.

73     Soft landscaping and raised planters will be used to break up the open space. The
proposal also includes the introduction of eight semi mature silver birch and field maple trees,
most of which will be located on the western side of the site and at lower ground level. The
landscaping is of a high quality.

74      In terms of the requirements of London Plan policy 4B.1 the development generally
provides a high quality urban environment. It provides new public realm and new pedestrian
permeability in a clear structure.

75      However, when compared to the pre-application discussion that GLA officers held
with the applicant, one of the most obvious features of the application is that it has been
submitted independently of the planning application for the redevelopment of the adjoining
site at 30 Marsh Wall and the adjacent Cuba Street site. All three sites are adjacent to one
another (separated only a stand alone residential block). During the pre-application
discussions the applicant was encouraged to work with the owners neighbouring site and to
ensure a cohesive planning approach that included a landscaping strategy that incorporated
the ‘public steps’ between numbers 30 and 40. While there is sufficient comfort within an
informal cumulative application study (supplied by the applicant) that the proposed building
will not discount future redevelopment on the adjoining sites, and there has been thought
given to some sort of co-ordinated approach to landscaping, the level of joint working,
particularly in relation to the level difference is disappointing. Indicative plans and
supporting text within the informal cumulative assessment describe how steps and lifts will
be installed as part of this development and future developments and the existing steps are
shown as an area of landscaping. The steps are described as probably being in the ownership
of a third party and should be subject to a Council compulsory purchase order in the future.
This approach is unacceptable and the applicant should at least provide detail of attempts
made to find the owner of the land, as simply referring to the land as a ransom strip and
putting the issue to one side, does not represent good practice. It was hoped that if this land

                                                                                                 page 14
could be incorporated into the site, elevators and stairs may not have been necessary on 30 or
40 Marsh Wall.

76     In order to overcome this concern, the applicant is expected to provide further
information and detail about the stairs adjacent to the property, such as who owns these and
any attempts made to introduce these into the development.



Land use
77      The proposal sits just outside the CAZ boundary but within a location that is very
accessible to the commercial hub at Canary Wharf. There are also other hotels in the area and
Canary Wharf is a recognised hotel location in London. Policy 5G.2 ‘Strategic priorities for the
Central Activities Zone’ lists the strategic priorities for the CAZ. These include business and
retail uses that will enhance London’s role in the world economy. Another strategic priority is
to enhance and manage the role of the CAZ as the country’s premier visitor location. The
proposal for the hotel, although just outside CAZ, will support this policy and enhance facilities
for visitors to London.

78     Similarly, the proposal will support policy 3D.7 ‘Visitor accommodation and facilities’,
which seeks to achieve a target of 40,000 net additional hotel rooms by 2026, and states that
boroughs should, focus strategically important new visitor provision within Opportunity
Areas. This site is not within the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, but is on the boundary of it.

79     Additionally, London Plan policy 3B.9 ‘Tourism Industry’ seeks to enhance the quality
and appeal of London’s tourism offer. The principle of the proposed hotel is welcomed as it
contributes to the aims of London Plan Policy 3B.9 through maximising opportunities arising
from the Olympic and Paralympic Games to promote London's status and image as a leading
world city to an international audience, including potential tourists and investors.

80       As part of hotel development the London Plan seeks agreements to provide affordable
staff accommodation. The applicant should endeavour to provide staff accommodation on
site, or nearby. This should be pursued in future negotiations on future detailed proposals for
the site and any future section 106 agreement.

81       The proposal involves the loss of approximately 3,000 sq.m of office floorspace. As the
application site is not within the CAZ or the northern Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, there is
no specific strategic policy protection for the protection of office floorspace. However, given
the local importance of office provision in the area, the applicant has produced an employment
land study to help justify the loss of the employment floorspace. The report concludes that
the location/building is not attractive to tenants and there is an over supply and decrease of
office demand in Canary Wharf at present. It is put forward that demand is likely to be
focussed within Canary Wharf itself and not within the fringes. It is noted that the report
does not go into detail as to the specifics of the current occupation levels of the building and
demand for cheaper ‘fringe’ buildings within the area, however, at least strategically, the
provision of the hotel and other commercial spaces is sufficient justification for the loss of the
office floorspace.

82        The hotel, bars and cafes will add vibrancy to the street frontage along Marsh Wall.

Access and inclusive design


                                                                                          page 15
83     London Plan Policy 3D.7 ‘Visitor accommodation and facilities’ states that boroughs
should support an increase in the quality and quantity of fully wheelchair accessible
accommodation. The aim of London Plan policy 4B.5 9 ’Creating an inclusive environment’ is also
to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just
the minimum), all developments should seek to better minimum access requirements.

84      The applicant proposes 5% wheelchair access rooms and a further 5% adaptable rooms.
This is strongly supported and the floorplans provided demonstrate that the applicant has
made a very good effort at providing a highly accessible form of hotel forms. The circulation
space is generous, the doors are wide, the bathrooms are large (and hoist space provided) and
there is adequate space on either side of the bed. The plans for the wheelchair
accessible/adaptable rooms are a little ambiguous in that they mention both baths and showers.
It is suggested that showers (with level access) are used in a high proportion of the rooms, to
allow easy access to them for wheelchair users.

85     The provision of blue badge space off Manilla Street is supported. There are several
ambiguous statements within the various submission documents which refer to no, low or
limited parking. The exact number of spaces should be clarified. It would appear that the blue
badge space is provided behind a garage door off Manilla Street, and in which case, measures
should be in place to advise blue badge users that the space is there and it is easily accessible.
Given the low parking level, the access statement should provide more detail on the alternative
parking arrangements for people with disabilities and limited mobility. Details on the
alternative parking locations (i.e. car parking buildings) should be provided. Potentially the
hotel should consider a valet parking scheme, which may be of assistance to those people with
limited mobility who do not have specifically adapted cars. In essence, the access statement
should give a more robust consideration to the parking issue.

86       Revolving doors into the main reception and lobby should be removed from the
scheme so that all users to the hotel can enter the building through the same entrance.

87     As mentioned with the design section of this report, a notable short-coming of this
application is the lack of information regarding the adjoining steps to the west of the site.
While it is recognised these fall outside the ownership of the applicant and do not form part of
the red-line boundary, these steps are important in addressing the level change between
Marsh Wall and Cuba Street. Unfortunately, at present there is no access for people with
wheelchairs or mobility problems. They would be forced to take a longer route from north to
south via Westferry Road. It was hoped that potentially this application, particularly in
conjunction with the neighbouring site, could offer an alternative and better access
arrangement for those with limited mobility to also use this point as a cut through.

88      It appears that on the west of the site, the level difference is to be dealt with by the
provision of an external lift from Manilla Street up to the main hotel podium level on Marsh
Wall. However, it is an little unclear if this is the only way up and more detailed drawings
should be supplied including a north-south section through the relevant part of the site. The
external lift has a glazed design and should be an interesting feature within the landscaping,
however, it is requested that an option be explored where the lift could be moved further
towards Marsh Wall ideally directly adjacent to the existing stairs, so that the access point to
either the upper or lower level is the same whether the person is walking or taking the lift.

89       On the east of the site only a stair is provided, while within the bar at lower ground
level (i.e Manilla Street) access to the upper ground floor only appears to be via escalator.
One or both of these situations could be improved by the introduction of an additional lift that
would create a more inclusive environment.

                                                                                         page 16
Transport

90     Given the high public transport accessibility level, the car-free development is
welcomed. The applicant’s willingness to withhold the right to on-street parking permits to
occupants, is also welcomed and both measures help promote sustainable modes of travel. As
above, there is some uncertainty as the level of blue badge car parking, to ensure compliance
with London Plan Policy 3C.23 ‘Parking Strategy’, and the car parking standards provided in
Annex 4, at least two parking spaces for disabled users be provided.

91     The provision of a coach and taxi lay-by on Marsh Wall is welcomed and the further
provision outside either number 30 or 40 Marsh Wall, should be secured through the Section
106 agreement. It is understood that locating a lay-by outside of number 40 Marsh Wall
would necessitate the relocation of a bus stop; if this is the case, any relocation should be at the
developer’s expense and compliant with Transport for London’s accessibility guidance note.

92      It is accepted that due to the nature and scale of the development, the proposal will have
a minimal impact on the capacity of the bus network. As a result of the bus stop audit, the
applicant should upgrade those stops where deficiencies exist. A capped contribution of
£50,000 should be sought to bring those facilities to Transport for London’s accessibility
standards. This will ensure compliance with London Plan Policy 3C.20 ‘Improving conditions for
buses’.

93     There is sufficient capacity on DLR and London Underground Jubilee line services to
accommodate the impacts arising from this development. However, the development should
make provision for DLR real time travel information through the provision of DAISY
(Docklands Arrival Information System) in communal areas. A suggested sum of £20,000
should be set aside for its installation and should be secured through Section 106 agreement.

94      A considerable increase in walk trips towards South Quay DLR station is expected as a
result of this development, and accordingly pedestrian facilities should be improved.
Additional information on the condition of the surrounding pedestrian environment should also
be further investigated, ensuring compliance with London Plan and Policy 3C.21 ‘Improving
Conditions for Walking’. Footway widths are expected to be compliant with the minimum width
requirement of two metres, providing a safe and accessible route to the development. A
pedestrian crossing survey should also be undertaken for all crossings within the vicinity of the
proposed development. An audit of signage is also necessary to ensure visitors are directed to
key public transport facilities and local amenities by taking account of the principles within the
Transport for London Legible London project.

95      The site is within easy access of the Thames Pathway National Trail. As this pathway
is part of Transport for London’s Strategic Walk Network, a Section 106 contribution of
£1,400 is requested towards the installation of an Olympic sign and the provision of three new
gates.

96     Given the lack of a direct cycle route between the DLR station and the development, the
applicant should investigate the scope for providing cycling improvements and permeability to
ensure that sustainable travel is promoted, in line with London Plan Policy 3C.22 ‘Improving
Conditions for Cycling’.

97     The provision of thirty cycle parking spaces for the hotel and office staff and a further
eight spaces for visitors is welcomed in line with Transport for London’s cycle parking
standards. It is recommended that the visitor spaces are sheltered.

                                                                                           page 17
98     Although a draft travel plan has been submitted as part of the application, a full travel
plan should be provided and reviewed by Transport for London prior to any planning consent.

99     Where possible, the canal and river system should be used as the main mode of
transporting construction/waste materials in and out of the site. The development should be
supported by a Construction Logistics Plan and a Delivery and Servicing. Those should be
secured by condition and/or the Section 106 agreement.

100 The application is generally supported by Transport for London, provided the impacts
of the development are mitigated (as outlined above) to accord with transport policies in the
London Plan. Transport for London welcome further discussion on these mitigation measures.




Energy
101 The applicant has applied the energy hierarchy in London Plan policy 4A.1 ‘Tackling
climate change’. The proposals are acceptable in principle, subject to the clarification of the
issues below.

Baseline emissions and energy efficiency

102 The baseline emissions for the development have been estimated to be 1,146 tonnes of
carbon dioxide per annum. These have been adequately calculated using suitable modelling.

103 However, it is not clear whether the applicant has taken into account the carbon
emissions from non-regulated energy usages, i.e. appliances and equipment, and this needs to
be clarified. If non-regulated energy usages have not been taken into account, the figures
should be recalculated.

104 The applicant has proposed a series of demand reduction measures to reduce carbon
emissions beyond the baseline emissions. These include low energy lighting and lighting
controls, more stringent insulation and air tightness standards than those required by current
building regulations and mechanical and heat recovery ventilation systems, which result in
estimated carbon emission savings of 11% below the baseline emissions.

District heating

105 A district-heating network is proposed supplying all spaces within the proposed
building including the hotel bedrooms and swimming pool, restaurant and cafe and offices.
The system will be sized subject to the space heating, hot water and ventilation requirements,
and will have the following characteristics:

   It shall be operational prior to the occupation of the hotel and shall thereafter serve all
    spaces within the proposed building.

   It shall be supplied with heat as described below and by order of priority:

       - If viable, the district-heating network above shall be supplied with heat supplied using
       the Barkentine district-heating network;



                                                                                           page 18
       - If the above is not viable, heat-generating plant installed in a single energy centre
       within the building and that includes combined a heat and power plant.

106 The preferred option for supplying the heating requirements of the scheme is to connect
to the Barkentine district heating network. This is welcomed. The applicant has stated that a
preliminary meeting has taken place with operators of the Barkentine district heat network and
appears to be enough space heat capacity to supply the current proposal. The applicant should
provide further information that reflect and support the state of those conversations.

107 Additionally, the applicant needs to provide details of the carbon savings that will be
achieved if connection to Barkentine network was finally implemented using building
regulations approved software and using the carbon intensity of the heat as provided by the
Barkentine scheme operator.

108 Alternatively, and if connection to Barkentine scheme proves unviable, the applicant is
proposing to install a 150 kWe combined heat and power (CHP) plant to provide part of the
heating requirements as well as some of the cooling using the waste heat from the CHP plant
to run absorption chillers. This option has been estimated to save carbon emissions by a further
24.3%.

109 These proposals are welcomed but further information is required to fully understand
that suitable infrastructure would exist to allow implementing the on-site CHP option, if
connection to the Barkentine network proves to be not possible.

110 For this purpose, the applicant needs to demonstrate that enough space would exist
within the development to install all the heat generating plant that is being proposed including
the CHP plant, thermal storage (if required) top-up boilers, etc. Space requirements should
also allow, for the hydraulic interface required to connect to the Barkentine heating scheme,
e.g. heat exchangers.

111 Additionally, the applicant should clarify whether all heating requirements of the
scheme would be supplied using centralised plant including space heating, hot water and
ventilation requirements and to describe the internal heating distribution system that would be
used for space heating provision.

112 Finally it is recommended that the applicant designs the heating systems to ensure full
compatibility of the proposed scheme and the Barkentine heat network.

Cooling

113 If connection to Barkentine network is not viable, the applicant would provide part of
the cooling requirements by using absorption chillers fired with heat from the CHP plant.
Additionally, the potential for using dock water for the cooling system is being explored. This
option would improve the efficiency of the cooling system but would consent from British
Waterways and the Environment Agency. These negotiations are still in an early stage and
therefore no commitment to this option has been included in the energy strategy.

114 While it is acknowledged that permission from the Environment Agency is required
before heat can be rejected to the dock water, the applicant should estimate the carbon savings
that this option could achieve as well as to explore the impact that this would have in the dock
water, i.e how much heat is expected to be rejected, are other schemes in the area that already
rejecting heat to the dock, etc. Also, evidence of conversations with the EA would be useful to
understand the possibilities of implementing this option.

                                                                                          page 19
115 Additionally, the applicant is requested to provide further information regarding the
possibilities for using free cooling and to describe any other measures that are being considered
in order to reduce the demand for cooling in the first instance.

Renewables

116 The applicant has undertaken an options appraisal with the aim of investigating which
are the opportunities for integrating renewable energy technologies within the proposed
development. They have identified that there is very limited space for the installation of roof
mounted solar technologies due to space required for chillers plant at the roof level. Other
technologies (besides the use of dock water) are not considered suitable for this scheme, which
is accepted in this instance.

117 It is stated that 60 sq.m of photovoltaic panels could be installed vertically on the
southern and western facades. This has been estimated to reduce carbon emission by a further
0.2%. The applicant should provide supporting drawings to demonstrate the space available for
the integration of photovoltaics. In relation to the current proposals , the applicant needs to
take into account that facade mounted photovoltaics might be more easily affected by shading
due to future developments which should be considered prior to installation.

118 It is acknowledged that the opportunities for increasing the contribution of renewable
energy technologies are limited



Climate change adaptation
119 The London Plan promotes five principles in policy 4A.9 to promote and support the
most effective adaptation to climate change. Developments are required to be adaptable to the
climate they will face over their lifetime and address the five principles set out in policy 4A.9 of
the London Plan. These are to minimise overheating and contribution to heat island effects,
minimise solar gain in summer, contribute to flood risk reductions, including applying
sustainable drainage principles, minimising water use and protecting and enhancing green
infrastructure. Specific policies cover overheating, living roofs and walls, and water.

Overheating

120 London Plan policy 4A.10 requires developments to be designed to address overheating,
using a range of design considerations and measures such as site layout, natural ventilation
systems, and use of appropriate building materials such as those with high thermal mass and
incorporation of green infrastructure such as a green roof.

121 The site layout and orientation is constrained by the limited site area and surrounding
development. The detailed design includes louvres and two roof terraces. Despite having a flat
roof surface the proposal does not incorporate a green roof, as it appears the roof area will
house various plant and chillers. Further detail of the roof plan should be provided. It is
recognised that the roof area is quite small, but this combined with the roof terraces may
provide some scope for a incorporation of brown or green roofs. This should be investigated.

Water conservation and sustainable urban drainage

122 Policy 4A.14 seeks to ensure that surface water run-off associated with a proposed
development is managed as close to its source as possible, and sets out a hierarchy of preferred


                                                                                           page 20
measures to achieve this. Policy 4A.16 seeks to ensure that new development has proper
regard to the impact of those proposals on water demand and existing capacity by minimising
the use of treated water and maximising rainwater-harvesting opportunities. The policy seeks
to maximise rainwater-harvesting opportunities and promotes the use of grey water recycling
and dual potable systems.

123 Rainwater harvesting is proposed for irrigation and watering, as it is estimated that
there will be an insufficient level to provide water within the hotel. The proposed rainwater
harvesting should be secured by condition. The proposal should also address whether there is
scope to include sustainable drainage measures as sought by London Plan policy 4A.14
‘Sustainable drainage’.

124 London Plan policy 4B.10 expects all large-scale buildings to illustrate exemplary
standards of sustainable construction and resource management. The scheme anticipates
gaining a BREEAM Very Good rating, whereas an exemplary building would achieve an
‘excellent’ rating. While the principle of a ‘very good’ rating is generally acceptable, it would
be preferable to see what further measures would be necessary to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating.

Local planning authority’s position
125    Not yet known.

Legal considerations
126 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 Council 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 Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the
application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local
planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected
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
127    There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion
128 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms and many of the
elements of the proposal respond very well to the policies of the London Plan and requests
made by GLA officers. However, on balance the application does not comply with the London
Plan, although the following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned
deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London
Plan:
      The overall design is of a sufficiently high but further information is required to ensure
       the building does not have a negative impact on strategic views and the building
       materials are of a high quality:

                                                                                         page 21
      The design quality of the landscaping around the building is of a high quality, however,
       it still disappointing that the adjacent stairs on the neighbouring site have not be
       incorporated into the development. The position of the external lift is also questioned
       and the details of how the level change between Marsh Wall and Manilla Street should
       be more clearly explained:
      The proposed land uses are supported in line with London Plan policies:
      The provision of the wheelchair accessible and wheelchair adaptable hotel rooms is
       strongly supported. Besides the level difference mentioned above, there are also several
       relatively minor changes that could be made to the scheme to demonstrate inclusive
       design principles have been fully incorporated in the proposals. This includes the
       removal of the revolving door, clarification on car parking numbers and parking
       arrangements:
      The traffic and transport elements of the proposal are also generally supported,
       although to ensure full compliance with London Plan policies various measures are
       required as outlined within paragraphs 50 to 60 of this report.
      Although the applicant proposes a generally robust approach to the provision of energy
       efficiency and renewable energy measures, to ensure full compliance with London Plan
       policy 4A.1 further information is sought. The information required is outlined within
       paragraphs 61 – 78 of this report:
      The building incorporates several sustainable design characteristics, but as yet does not
       include the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems and it is not clear why an
       ‘excellent’ BREEAM rating can not be achieved. Further information is sought as
       outlined within paragraphs 79 – 84 of this report.




for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Giles Dolphin, Assistant Director Planning
020 7983 4271 email giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Loren Brown, Case Officer
020 7983 4926 email loren.brown@london.gov.uk




                                                                                       page 22

								
To top