STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 18th October 2023

Report of the Corporate Director of Place Classification: Unrestricted

Application for Planning Permission click here for case file

Reference PA/22/00210

Site Ailsa Wharf, Ailsa Street, London, E14

Ward Lansbury

Proposal Redevelopment of the Site for a mixed-use scheme providing 952

residential units; 1,555 sqm GIA commercial floorspace (Use Class E)
within a series of buildings up to 23 storeys; the creation of a new
access road and the realignment of Ailsa Street; the provision of
safeguarded land for a bridge landing; the provision of cycle and car
parking spaces; and associated site-wide landscaping and public
realm works.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Summary Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations.

Recommendation

Applicant London RiverLea One

Architect/agent Broadway Malyan (architect)

Lichfields (planning agent)

Case Officer Aleksandra Milentijevic

Key dates - Application registered as valid on 09/03/2022

- Initial consultation finished on 17/04/2022
- Amendments and further information received on 13/04/2023
- Amended scheme consultation finished on 10/05/2023
- EIA Regulation 25 finished on 02/06/2023
- Further environmental information received on 30/06/2023
- EIA Regulation 25 finished on 18/08/2023

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal includes the redevelopment of a site in the Lower Lea Valley, consisting of
construction of a mixed-use residential-led development providing 952 residential units
under Use Class C3 and 1,548 sqm of commercial floorspace under Use Class E.

The site has an extant planning permission for a similar development of a small scale
providing 785 residential units and 2,954 sqm of commercial floorspace. The proposed
development would be delivered in two Phases, where Phase 1 buildings would completely
mirror the same buildings in the extant scheme, and the proposed changes would relate to
the Phase 2 buildings.
The proposals would result in the improvement to the site layout through the provision of a
more consolidated open space along the riverside as well as taking a strong landscape
focus, which is supported. The proposals would result in the increase in height of the
buildings within Phase 2 reaching up to 23 storeys (69m AOD height), which is considered
appropriate for the site, particularly given the changes to the existing and emerging context
of the area.

In terms of housing, the proposed development would provide a total of 952 residential units,
out of which 35.5% would be affordable housing, based on the habitable room calculation.
Of the total 285 affordable units, there would be 176 affordable rented and 109 intermediate
units, based on a 66:34 split in favour of the affordable rented units. The proposed housing
mix and affordable housing offer is considered acceptable.

The proposed development would provide adequate housing accommodation given that the
proposal results in varying daylight and sunlight conditions across the development site, with
68% of habitable rooms meeting the daylight levels recommended by BRE. This has been
balanced against other needs for the proposed development, such as the provision of the
appropriate amount of communal amenity and child play space for future occupiers of the
site.

The proposal would result in some adverse impact to the adjoining and neighbouring
properties, mainly in relation to the daylight and sunlight whilst other considerations such as
privacy, outlook and construction impacts are considered to be acceptable. It has been
noted that the proposed scheme has aimed to ensure that the impact on the surrounding
area and properties is minimised through the provision of appropriate breathing space.

The highways aspect of the scheme, including servicing and deliveries would occur within
the applicant’s red line boundary, which is acceptable. There would be sufficient provision of
cycle storage parking and facilities in line with the London Plan requirements, including a
Cycle Hire docking station. The proposed car parking arrangements would include the
delivery of the consented car parking spaces within the basement of Phase 1 and on-street
blue badge spaces for Phase 2, which would be acceptable for both phases. The proposals
would continue to safeguard the bridge landing area for the future bridge across the River
Lea.

The proposed waste arrangements would include traditional collection method by using
Eurobins for Phase 1, and the Underground Refuse Storage waste method for Phase 2. The
proposed amount and location of waste storage would be acceptable for the proposed
development.

The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES), which has
been reviewed by Council Officers in conjunction with Temple and has been found to be
adequate. The proposed environmental impacts of the scheme are considered to be
acceptable.

Overall, the application has been assessed against the Development Plan policies. It is
considered that there are aspects of the proposals that would not comply with detailed
policies. However, taken as a whole, it is considered that the proposed changes to Phase 2,
and as such the proposed development would result in improvements to the extant scheme
and the delivery of additional housing in the borough.

On this basis, Officers recommend the approval of planning permission subject to conditions,
planning obligations and any direction by the Mayor of London.
Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey, London Borough of Tower Hamlets 100019288

Planning Applications Site Map

PA/22/00210
This site map displays the Planning Application Site
Boundary and the extent of the area within which London Borough
neighbouring occupiers / owners were consulted as part of
the Planning Application Process of Tower Hamlets

Scale : 50m grid squares Date: 09 October 2023

1. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site is approximately 2.39 hectares in size and situated on the western bank
of the River Lea beyond which sits the London Borough of Newham along the eastern bank
of the river. The site is bounded by Lochnagar Street to the south and the A12 and its
footway area to the west. To the north of the site sits the Ailsa Wharf Waste Management
Site while to the north-west of the application site are residential units within the Old Poplar
Library site and Wellspring Close, adjacent to which are some container office units.

1.2 The application site was previously occupied by various industrial activities, increasing car
breaking, vehicle salvage, waste transfer and open storage and scrap yards. At the
approximately middle of the application site on its riverside front is the cable bridge across
the River Lea. The current status of the application site is under construction, as per the
planning history detailed below.

1.3 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential and industrial uses and has
been undergoing significant regeneration with several large-scale mixed-use developments
creating a more residential-led area. Islay Wharf site sits to the south of the site, beyond
which is the Former Poplar Bus Depot currently undergoing redevelopment. Adjacent to
these sites is the Bromley Hall School, a Grade II Listed Building, on the southern side of
Lochnagar Street. An application for the redevelopment of Aberfeldy Estate on the southern
side of Lochnagar Street has been take over by the Mayor of London and awaits
determination.

1.4 The site is surrounded by several historic assets, including the Limehouse Cut conservation
area which runs to the north of the waste transfer site, grade II listed Bromley Hall School,
Old Poplar Library and Former Brunswick Road Fire Station, and grade II* listed building at
43 Gillender Street. On the opposite side of the A12, several heritage assets including the
grade II listed St Michael’s Court and a few locally listed buildings are situated within the
Langdon Park conservation area. Further to the south on the western side of the A12 sits the
grade II* listed Balfron Tower and grade II listed Carradale House and Glenkerry House
included in the Balfron Tower conservation area. The site forms part of the Lee Valley
Archaeological Priority Area.

1.5 The application site forms part of the central and largest area of the Ailsa Street Site
Allocation, which also includes the waste transfer site and adjacent sites, as well as the
Bromley Hall School, Islay Wharf and Former Poplar Bus Depot sites to the south. The site
is included in the GLA’s Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area and the Poplar Riverside
Housing Zone.

1.6 In terms of environmental designations, the site is included in the flood risk area and flood
zones 2A and 3. The adjacent River Lea is the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
The new Green Grid is also shown across the application site. A smaller part of the south-
western area of the site is included within the area of deficiency of access to nature. The
whole of the borough represents the Air Quality Management Area, however, due to the
proximity to the A12, the western half of the site is in an area of substandard air quality
whilst the adjacent A12 experiences even worse conditions of air quality.

1.7 The site is within an area of poor public transport accessibility with Public Transport
Accessibility Level (PTAL) being 3 in the area closer to the A12 along Lochnagar Street
whilst the rest of the site measures PTAL of 1a and 1b, on a scale where 6b represents
excellent accessibility levels to public transport decreasing to 1a and 1b being poor. The
main bus route serving the site is D8 with a route from Stratford to Crossharbour. Within a 5
minute walk is a bus route 309 serving places between Canning Town and Bethnal Green
area.

Extant planning permission

1.8 The application site has an extant planning permission for a mixed-use residential-led
development which secured the delivery of a total of 785 residential units and 2,954 sqm of
commercial floorspace.

1.9 The three riverside buildings increase in height north to south starting with 13 storeys (block
C, 15 storeys (block B) to 17 storeys (block A). Block M fronting along the A12 is a part 7,
part 8, part 10 storey building while block D on Lochangar Street is part 6, part 8 storeys in
height. The two courtyard buildings positioned within the central part of the site range in
height from 3-8 storeys, where the southern element of these comprises a row of 3 storey
terrace houses.

Figure 1. Previously permitted Ailsa Wharf scheme.

1.10 In terms of housing, the extant permission secured 35% affordable units by habitable room.
The 233 affordable units are split 65/35% in favour of affordable rent (50% Tower Hamlets
Living Rent and 50% London Affordable Rent) with the remaining being intermediate sale
units. This equates to 152 affordable rented units and 81 intermediate units.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is a revised scheme for the site, a redevelopment of the application site
consisting of a of mixed-use residential-led development delivering 952 residential units
under Use Class C3 and 1,555 sqm of commercial floorspace under Use Class E. The
proposed development would be delivered in two phases, as shown in the Figure below.

2.2 The proposals under this application seek to build on the extant permission for the site which
secured a development of a similar layout as detailed in the previous section. The proposed
changes relate to Phase 2 of the consented scheme given that Phase 1 has been
implemented and is under construction. The south-eastern corner of the site continues to
provide safeguarded land area for the future bridge across the River Lea providing
connection to London Borough of Newham.
 Figure 2. Proposed phasing strategy.
Key: Red – Phase 1, Orange – Phase 2.

2.3 Phase 1 buildings include the courtyard buildings which would incorporate a mix of
affordable and private units. The northern courtyard building would incorporate blocks E-H
and the southern building would incorporate blocks I-L.

2.4 The proposed Phase 2 consists of the three residential towers along the riverside and block
M which is situated immediately adjacent to the A12. The residential blocks have been
designed in a way to provide a riverside park between them, which would be publicly
accessible and incorporate child play space.

2.5 The proposed commercial uses would be provided on the ground floor of the riverside
towers and block M, as well as on the first floor of block M, while the residential use would
be on all upper floors. Phase 1 buildings would incorporate only residential use on all floors,
however, there would a small commercial unit within block I at the junction of Lochnagar
Street and Bromley Hall Road.

2.6 The proposed pedestrian access into the site would generally be provided around each of
the buildings, however, the main pedestrian routes would run along the proposed streets.
This would allow for access from Lochnagar Street, the A12 and along the riverside walk.
The main cycle routes would be along the proposed street, while the proposed vehicle
access would be from Lochangar Street into the extended Bromley Hall Road where further
movement would be clockwise to exit the site as all streets would be one way.

2.7 In terms of housing, the proposed development would provide a total of 952 residential units,
out of which 35.5% would be affordable housing, based on the habitable room calculation.
Of the total 285 affordable units, there would be 176 affordable rented and 109 intermediate
units, based on a 66:34 split in favour of the affordable rented units. The intermediate units
are proposed as shared ownership whilst the affordable rented units will be equally split
between the Tower Hamlets Living Rent and London Affordable Rent.
 Figure 3. Proposed site layout, showing block locations.

2.8 The proposed courtyard buildings would retain all features of the consented scheme,
including the height ranging of 3-8 storeys. Along the southern block, the height would be 3
storeys as the units would be provided as dwellinghouses. The western part of the two
buildings would have seven storeys while the eastern part would have 8 storeys.

2.9 For the riverside buildings, the tallest would be block B with 23 storeys and 69m in height
while the adjacent block B would be 22 storeys and 67m in height. The most northern
riverside building, block C, would be 22 storeys but reaching 69m in height.

2.10 Blocks B and C would have an additional smaller element. To the south of block B would sit
block B2 which would be nine storeys in height, and to the north of block C, block C2 would
be situated reaching 10 storeys in height. Block M on the western part of the site along the
A12 would be 12 storeys in height reaching 37m. Block M would also have a basement,
which would be used as additional space for operational purposes linked to the residential
use.

2.11 The proposed buildings would be clad in brick with metalwork as secondary material for
window frames and balcony balustrades.

2.12 The proposals have taken a landscape-led approach through the creation of different
landscape character areas and movement routes. As part of these, the proposed
development would include the delivery of a consolidated open space along the riverside,
improvements to the route on the site and in the wider area, better connection to the A12
underpass, as well as landscaping along the A12, adjacent to block M.

2.13 The proposed development would provide communal amenity space for each of the blocks,
which would be accessible to the residents of the subject blocks. With regards to the child
play space, the majority would be provided as publicly accessible, particularly within the
proposed riverside blocks, and some play space areas would also be provided within the
podium and internal courtyard of the blocks.

2.14 The servicing and deliveries, including waste collection, would take place within the red-line
boundary. For Phase 1, the proposed waste collection and management would use the
traditional method while for Phase 2, the proposals involve the use of URS, which is
 proposed adjacent to the blocks on Ailsa Street and the extended Bromley Hall Road on
site.

2.15 The proposed car parking provision would consist of the two basement areas, each one
situated below the courtyard blocks within Phase 1. For Phase 2, the proposed units would
be car free with the exception of providing blue badge spaces for the proposed wheelchair
units. The proposed cycle parking would be situated within the ground floor of all blocks.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Application site
3.1 The application site has the following planning consent, which have been implemented with
Phase 1 being currently under construction. This will be referred to as extant consent
throughout the report.

PA/18/03461 – Section 73 application granted on 16/01/2020.

An application for a minor material amendment to planning permission PA/16/02692 dated

2nd October 2018 in respect of amendments to the internal layouts and external elevations
of Blocks IJKL, EFGH and M and to the footprint and layout of all basements, together with
amendments to the residential tenure mix by block and the detailed design of the
landscaping and public realm.

PA/16/02692 – Full planning permission granted on 02/10/2018.

Demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use
scheme providing 785 residential units (C3) and 2,954 sqm GIA commercial floorspace
(A1/A3/B1/D2) within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys
(Maximum AOD height of 59.9) ; the creation of a new access road and the realignment of
Ailsa Street; the provision of cycle and car parking spaces; and associated site-wide
landscaping and public realm works.

Surrounding area

3.2 The surrounding area has been undergoing significant redevelopment and the adjoining
sites in the area have the following planning history:

Land forming part of Ailsa Wharf, Lochangar Street (Lochnagar Bridge)

PA/23/01679 – Application for full planning permission currently under consideration.

New pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Lea at Ailsa Wharf.

Islay Wharf

PA/19/01760 – Full planning permission granted on 20/11/2020.

Demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use
scheme providing 785 residential units (C3) and 2,954 sqm GIA commercial floorspace
(A1/A3/B1/D2) within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys
(Maximum AOD height of 59.9) ; the creation of a new access road and the realignment of
Ailsa Street; the provision of cycle and car parking spaces; and associated site-wide
landscaping and public realm works.

Aberfeldy Estate

PA/21/02377 – Application for Outline planning permission currently under consideration by

the Mayor of London.

Hybrid application seeking detailed planning permission for Phase A and Outline planning
permission for future phases, comprising:
 Outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the demolition of all existing structures
and redevelopment to include a number of buildings (up to 100m AOD) and up to
139,629sqm (GEA) of floorspace comprising the following mix of uses:

 Residential (Class C3);

 Retail, workspace, food and drink uses (Class E);
 Car and cycle parking;
 Formation of new pedestrian route through the conversion and repurposing of the
Abbot Road vehicular underpass for pedestrians and cyclists connecting to Jolly’s
Green;
 Landscaping including open spaces and public realm; and
 New means of access, associated infrastructure and highway works.

In Full, for residential (Class C3), retail, food and drink uses and a temporary marketing suite
(Class E and Sui Generis), together with access, car and cycle parking, associated
landscaping and new public realm, and open space.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Former Poplar Bus Depot

PA/19/02148 – Full planning permission granted on 14/10/2020. Consent implemented.

Part retention and part demolition of the existing boundary walls and the former tram shed
depot arches, and retention of the three storey office building. Demolition of the remainder of
the existing warehouse and the redevelopment of the site to provide 530 residential units
(Class C3), 2644sqm (GIA) of workspace (Classes B1a, B1b, or B1c), 508sqm (GIA) of
flexible retail; professional services; and restaurant/bar uses (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4),
within buildings ranging from 3 storeys (20.2m AOD) to 20 storeys (72.7m AOD), with
associated parking, landscaping, public realm and all associated works.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

4. PUBLICITY AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1 The applicant carried out the pre-application non-statutory consultation in May 2021, which
is detailed in the submitted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), prepared by
Lichfields.

4.2 As evidenced in the SCI, the applicant’s engagement consisted of the distribution an
informative leaflet to properties in the area and the provision of a dedicated website, with
opportunities to provide feedback either online or via a form by Free Post. The majority of
the responses supported a redevelopment of the site given its current state, as well as
specifics relating to the affordable housing on site, car and cycle parking, and landscaping
and public realm.

4.3 During the pre-application stage, the scheme was presented to the Council’s Conservation
and Design Advisory Panel. This process ensured that the proposed design has been
reviewed by the design experts, in accordance with London Plan policy D4 which requires
development proposals referable to the Mayor to undergo at least one design review panel.

4.4 Upon validation, the Council carried out statutory consultation for the application which
consisted of putting up planning notices along the western boundary of the site, a press
notice in the local press, and sending 1,218 neighbour letters to the properties in the local
area.

4.5 An additional re-consultation of 14 days was carried out at the end of April 2023 for the
submitted changes to the proposed scheme incorporating a second staircase to blocks A, B,
C and M, as well as the relocation of block C by 3m away from the River Lea, and
associated landscaping changes.
4.6 Two consultations under Regulation 25 were carried out, one running concurrently with the
mentioned re-consultation, and an additional one in August 2023. Both of the Regulation 25
consultations were subject to a minimum of 30 days.

4.7 A total of one representation in support of the proposal was received. The supporter
expressed opinion of a sensitive development and positive additional density which would
provide new amenities and much needed homes.

5. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

5.1 Below is a summary of the consultation responses received from both internal and external
consultees.

External consultees

Canal & River Trust

5.2 The main issue relates to the arrangements for surface water drainage. As such, a condition
should be secured, and the Trust would want the opportunity to comment on the design of
outfalls and the pollution control measures, as well as the Construction Environmental
Management Plan. The secured CEMP should also secure pollution control measures by
ensuring that no extracted/perched groundwater is discharged into the River Lea during the
demolition and construction works.

5.3 A pre-commencement condition securing a feasibility assessment for waterbourne freight

during demolition and construction stage should be secured, as well as a condition for a
Landscape Management Plan.

5.4 Informatives should be secured for the necessary consents to be obtained by the developer
for any works affecting the Canal & River Trust and any surface water discharge to the
waterway.

Environment Agency

5.5 Initial objections due to the proximity of the proposal to the flood defence. Additional
information requested in relation to the proximity of the proposed development to the buried
elements forming part of the flood defence. A river wall raising strategy should be submitted.

5.6 Following of the submission of the changes to the proposals, the initial objections have been
removed. Conditions have been suggested in relation to the implementation of the
development in accordance with the plans, detailed balcony design and removal method,
and ecological enhancement to the river wall. An informative should be put in relation to the
flood risk activity permit.

Greater London Authority

5.7 The use of the site for residential and commercial floorspace along with public realm
improvements in supported in line with the extant consent and to help achieve housing and
jobs targets in the Opportunity Area. The reduced level of employment floorspace raises no
strategic concern and meets with the objectives of the London Plan employment policies.

5.8 Further optimisation of the extant consent to deliver additional housing is supported in
principle. Whilst the site was previously in industrial use, on the basis that the previous
consent for residential-led mixed use development committed to delivering 35% affordable
housing has been implemented, as well as the weighting of the affordable housing towards
genuinely affordable, low cost rent housing, it is appropriate to apply a 35% affordable
housing threshold in order to meet the fast track route. Rent levels, eligible income
thresholds and an early stage viability review should be secured in the s106 agreement.

5.9 The proposed layout reflects the consented scheme with the exception of the three towers
that would be slimmer and allow for better daylight and sunlight condition of the open space
which is also considered to be an improvement on the previous series of smaller,
compromised spaces. The proposed positioning of units and openings within block M, as
 well as the landscape around the block would minimise the adverse impact of the adjacent
A12.

5.10 The moderate increase in height across the site from the consented scheme is broadly
comparable with the extant scheme and the buildings’ layout and overall massing are
considered to be an improvement. The internal layout of buildings raises no strategic
concern. The architectural approach is expected to result in a high quality scheme and
raises no strategic issues. Relevant details on external building materials, compliance with
fire statement and accessible units should be secured by condition.

5.11 Whilst it is accepted that the impact on the highway network will be negligible, further details
should be provided on the trip generation and impact on public transport. The reduction in
car parking is welcomed and a parking management plan should be secured. The proposed
cycle parking for Phase 2 will be in line with the London Plan standards, but spaces for
oversized bicycles should be increased to include more provision for different bicycle types.

5.12 An Active Travel Zone assessment has been produced and the proposal includes a welcome
focus on prioritising pedestrian and cycle movement. The design retains the safeguarding for
the new bridge and the applicant should continue discuss with stakeholders. There would be
increased use of crossing of the A12 and contribution should be secured, along with a
financial contribution towards cycle hire docking station within the site. The relevant detailed
plans relating to construction stage should be secured, as well as a residential and non-
residential Travel Plans.

5.13 Further information should be provided with regards to the proposed energy strategy and
whole life-cycle carbon to demonstrate the scheme’s compliance with planning policies. Any
carbon offset payment should be based on the GLA’s recommended carbon offset price and
secured in the s106 agreement. Initiatives outlined within the final version of the Circular
Economy Statement should be appropriately secured.

5.14 Although the proposed would achieve less than 0.4 of the Urban Greening Factor, there
would be many new areas of planting, including trees. The net gain in biodiversity is
welcomed. The proposed surface water mitigation measures should be secured, as well as
any air-quality mitigation measures and requirements in order to meet the policy
requirements.

Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service

5.15 The application lies in an area of archaeological interest. The development could cause
harm to archaeological remains and field evaluation is needed to determine appropriate
mitigation. A two-stage archaeological condition is recommended to provide an acceptable
safeguard.

Historic England

5.16 No comments to make on the application.

Health and Safety Executive – Planning Gateway One

5.17 It has been noted that Phase 1 buildings have previous permission and the consultation
relates to Phase 2 buildings. Phase 2 buildings A, B, C and M do not have any basement
storeys which addresses previous concerns, and it is also noted that the revised design
includes a second escape stair that serve all residential levels in these blocks.

5.18 Following a review of the revised information provided in the applicant’s response, HSE is
satisfied with the fire safety design to the extent that it affects land use planning.

Lea Valley Regional Park Authority

5.19 No comments received.

London Borough of Newham

5.20 No comments received.

London Bus Services

5.21 No comments received.

London City Airport

5.22 No safeguarding objections to the proposed development. London City Airport requires a
notification of the future cranes that will/maybe operated on site. The details should include
maximum height, operating radius, name and phone number of site manager, installation
and dismantling dates.

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

5.23 No comments received.

London Legacy Development Corporation

5.24 No comments received.

London Underground/DLR Infrastructure Protection

5.25 No comments to make on this planning application as submitted.

Marine Management Organisation

5.26 The applicant should take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall
below the Mean High Water Springs mark. Applicants should be directed to the MMO’s
online portal.

Metropolitan Police – Crime Prevention Design Advisor

5.27 No objections to the application, subject to securing a condition to ensure Secured by

Design strategy detailing the measures incorporated into the development in order to meet
Secured by Design accreditation.

National Air Traffic Service

5.28 No safeguarding objection to the proposal.

National Amenities Society

5.29 No comments received.

National Grid (Plant Protection)

5.30 No comments received.

Natural England

5.31 Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development
will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or
landscapes.

Planning Casework Unit

5.32 No comments to make on the environmental statement.

Port of London Authority

5.33 The River Lea is outside of the PLA’s navigational jurisdiction, but within its landownership.
An informative should be added regarding the potential of an estates license should these
be required.
5.34 No details have been provided in relation to the proposals for the footbridge, and it must be
ensured that there is an appropriate amount of land safeguarded to ensure there is no
impediment to safe navigation and for future access/exist ramps etc. It is strongly
recommended that the applicant makes contact with all stakeholders on any updates on the
proposed bridge design.

5.35 The landscape proposals do not include any consideration for the provision of essential
riparian equipment along the river edge, and the PLA consider this essential infrastructure
must be provided, which can be secured through an appropriate worded planning condition.
External lighting should be designed to minimise the impact on navigation and ecology.

5.36 The Construction Environment Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan must give
full consideration to the maximisation of use of the River Lea as part of the construction
stage, which can be secured through a condition.

Thames Water Authority

5.37 There are public sewers and water mains crossing close to the development. A piling
method statement should be secured via condition. There are no objections to the surface
water and foul water sewerage network infrastructure capacities. Some capacity has been
identified to serve 99 dwellings. A condition should be secured to ensure that there is no
occupation beyond the 99th dwelling until all network upgrades have been completed or a
development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed.

Transport for London

5.38 There is very limited assessment of the potential impact of additional rail, underground and
DLR trips on nearby stations which will need to be provided to understand the cumulative
impact on these routes. The proposal is not expected to have a significant effect on bus
capacity to require mitigation.

5.39 The proposed streets within the development appears suitable for cycling and walking, and
the use of permeable block paving is welcomed across the site. The strategic importance of
the Lochnagar Street link has not been referenced in the application. The transition between
the street, in the area around the turning head and the ramp to the bridge is not clear. There
should be more emphasis on the place function.

5.40 An Active Travel Zone assessment has been produced in line with TfL’s updated guidance.
The increase in trips towards public transport would see increased use of crossing of the
A12, and it is considered that a contribution towards enhancements within the subway below
the A12 would benefit all users of the site.

5.41 The landscape masterplan includes indicative proposals for the A12 public realm works
extending beyond the red line boundary, including the repaving and planting of the public
highway. Further information and clarifications are requested on this element. A planning
mechanism, funding strategy and trigger points for the proposed A12 public realm works
would also need to be agreed, and the timing and phasing of payments and delivery will
therefore need to be discussed. The applicant would need to bear all costs associated with
such works.

5.42 The proposed car parking in line with the London Plan is welcomed. A parking management
plan should be secured, along with electric vehicle charging points, two car club spaces and
membership, restriction of Phase 2 residents applying for parking permits.

5.43 The quantum of the proposed cycle parking is in line with the London Plan standards,
however, the number of spaces for oversized bicycles should be increased to include more
provision for different bicycle types. Internal access in blocks A and C should be clarified.
Provision for non-residential elements should include facilities for changing areas and
storage. Cycle parking details should be secured by condition.

5.44 The original consent secured the location and delivery of a Cycle Hire docking station, which
should be retained. A financial contribution towards implementation of cycle hire should be
 secured in the s106 agreement, as well as implementation and monitoring of the Travel
Plan.

5.45 There is no reference to the role of the management company in receiving deliveries. A final
Delivery and Servicing Plan should be secured by condition, as well as a full Construction
Transport Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan.

Internal consultees

LBTH Biodiversity Officer

5.46 The application site has recently been cleared as part of the implementation of the extant
planning permission and has negligible biodiversity value. However, the baseline for
measuring biodiversity on site is before clearance which provided wildlife habitat. The
invasive Japanese knotweed occurs on the site and a strategy for safe and legal eradication
and disposal should be secured by condition.

5.47 The River Lea is a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, which could be
adversely affected by the development, both during construction and operation stages. The
lighting strategy should follow the Guidance Note 09/19 on bats and artificial lighting in order
to minimise the impact on bats. The lighting along the riverside walk should be low-level,
directional lighting, and no illumination should be directed at treelines near the river.

5.48 Clarification should be provided on the referred meadow planting. Tilia tomentosa should be
removed from the landscaping plan due to it being toxic to bees.

5.49 With the avoidance of lighting impacts, there would be a minor adverse impact on
biodiversity from the loss of the existing vegetation on site. The proposals include numerous
features which would enhance biodiversity and contribute to the Local Biodiversity Action
Plan targets, including an intertidal terrace along the river wall, ground level landscaping,
tree and shrub planting and three types of biodiverse roofs, as well as nest and bat boxes
and log piles and bug houses. All of these should be secured by condition.

LBTH Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Officer

5.50 The use of a boiler is currently proposed within Phase 1 to deliver a portion of the heat
demand. Whilst boilers are not normally accepted and alternative low carbon sources should
be used, in this instance the boiler is considered acceptable due to its incorporation within
the previous consent.

5.51 The total on-site wide CO2 emission reduction is anticipated to be 45.1% against the
Building Regulation baseline utilising the SAP10 carbon factors, through the use of energy
efficient design and heat pumps. The remainder the of the carbon offsetting should be
secured as a financial contribution.

5.52 However, the applicant should also model additional energy efficiency measures to meet the
energy efficiency target and also review the opportunities to deliver renewable energy
generating technologies, including maximisation of solar PVs.

LBTH Environmental Health Team

5.53 No objection in terms of air quality subject to incorporation the condition for dust
management plan and PM 10 monitoring, air quality standards for boilers, kitchen extract
standards for commercial uses, non-road mobile machinery and mechanical ventilation.

5.54 In terms of contaminated land, a post completion verification report should be included as a
condition.

5.55 Further details should be clarified with regards to the noise information presented in Chapter
H of the ES. The applicant should demonstrate how the design of the proposed development
would ensure there would be a relatively quiet ventilated space and external amenity space
for the use of the household, as well as communal amenity space. Conditions should be
secured for a noise insulation verification report for new residential units to be submitted,
 section 61 Restriction on Demolition and Construction Activities, and compliance details for
any mechanical plant and equipment to meet the acceptable noise levels.

LBTH Environmental Impact Assessment Officer

5.56 Following several reviews and provision of additional information, the ES is considered to be
adequate for the submitted application. The decision documents, including a Committee
report and decision notice, should contain the relevant details on the EIA process.

LBTH Growth and Economic Development Team

5.57 No comments received.

LBTH Housing Officer

5.58 The scheme provides a 35% affordable housing scheme by habitable rooms. The applicant
should confirm the split in the affordable rented tenure and proposed intermediate product.
Within Phase 2, affordable housing units are brought forward in block M which is close to the
A12 and will need to ensure that all mitigation measures are included within the design to
stop noise and pollution. The applicant has also made changes to the landscaped areas of
the building.

5.59 The scheme is delivering 11% of wheelchair units through blocks A, B, C and M. Detailed
drawings will need to be reviewed. It seems that some of the three bed 5 person units do not
appear to have charging points. Details on car parking spaces for the affordable rented
wheelchair units should be provided.

5.60 The applicant should look into some of the layout of the proposed units so these can be
reconfigured so that bathroom door does not open into the living area of the unit. Internal
doors within the general floor hallways of the building should be automated for wheelchair
units, as well as the main entrance.

LBTH Infrastructure Planning Team

5.61 No comments received.

LBTH Occupational Therapist

5.62 The affordable units should be delivered as Part M (4)(3)(2)b. The front door and internal
doors should be 850mm, with level access thresholds on all internal doorways with no
wooden thresholds, including level access to the private amenity area.

5.63 The proposed units should have a fully wheelchair accessible kitchen and the minimum
worktop length should be 6130mm. In bathrooms, there should be Part M wet room,
1500x1500x laid to fall shower area, height adjustable hand basin with flexible plumbing and
splash back tiled suitable for heights 700mm to 1000mm, and toilets high 480mm and
projecting 750mm clear of the wall.

LBTH Senior Arboricultural Officer

5.64 No comments received.

LBTH Surface Water Run Off Officer

5.65 No comments received.

LBTH Transportation & Highways

5.66 The proposals involve a number of changes to the approved scheme. The reduction in car
parking spaces is welcomed as it brings down the overall site numbers of parking spaces
from 210 to 91, which will help to mitigate the impact. A Permit Free agreement should be
secured restricting all future residents from apply for parking permits. The blue badge bays
should be on a lease and needs basis only. Free membership for at least three years should
be offered to residents for the car club spaces.
5.67 The proposed quantum of cycle parking spaces meets the London Plan standards, however,
there should be an increase in the provided 5% spaces for oversized/ adapted cycles to
encourage sustainable freight. More inclusive spaces should be provided. All cycle facilities
should meet the London Cycle Design Standards, and the relevant details should be secure
by condition.

5.68 The proposed servicing is acceptable, but there are concerns with regards to the URS
operation in Lochnagar Street in terms of safety, and the vehicle movement is likely to
impact on pedestrian and cycle access to the proposed bridge. A Service Management Plan
should be secured via condition.

5.69 The proposed development will open up a previously closed site and allows access to
riverside, along with the safeguarding of the bridge land area. To the west the site suffers
from severance along the A12 and a contribution should be provided towards improvements
to the crossing facilities. Other relevant documents for travel plans and construction stage
should be secured as appropriate.

LBTH Waste Officer

5.70 Clarification is required on the number of URS bins and their servicing, particular the ones
for block C which could impede on the pedestrian from the bridge. More detail is required on
the collection of food waste and the collection points. There should also be a separate space
for the short-term storage of bully items at the ground level. There are some concerns about
the implications on the collections and the movement of vehicles through the estate. All
commercial units should have sufficient waste storage facilities.

5.71 Additional comments raised an in-principle objection to the URS location on Lochnagar
Street.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND DOCUMENTS

6.1 Legislation requires that decisions on planning applications must be taken in accordance
with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.

6.2 In this case the Development Plan comprises:

‒ The London Plan (2021)
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (2020)

6.3 The key development plan policies relevant to the proposal are:

Land use

‒ London Plan: GG2, E1, SI16

‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: D.SG5, S.EMP1, D.EMP3, S.TC1, D.TC5, S.CF1, D.CF3

Housing

‒ London Plan: D2, D3, D6, D7, D12, D14, H1, H4, H5, H6, H10, S4
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: D.SG5, S.H1, D.H2, D.H3

Design and Heritage

‒ London Plan: D1, D3, D4, D5, D8, D9, D11, HC1, HC2, HC3, HC4, HC5, G4, SI16
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: S.DH1, D.DH2, S.DH3, D.DH4, S.DH5, D.DH6, D.DH7,
D.DH9, S.OWS1, S.OWS2, D.OWS3, D.OWS4

Neighbour Amenity
 ‒ London Plan: D14
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: D.SG4, D.DH8

Transport

‒ London Plan: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T6.1, T7, T8
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: D.SG4, S.TR1, D.TR2, D.TR3, D.TR4

Environment

‒ London Plan: G1, G5, G6, SI1, SI2, SI3, SI4, SI5, SI7, SI12, SI13
‒ Tower Hamlets Local Plan: D.SG3, D.SG5, S.ES1, D.ES2, D.ES3, D.ES4, D.ES5,
D.ES6, D.ES7, D.ES8, D.ES9, D.ES10, S.MW1, D.MW3

6.4 Other policy and guidance documents relevant to the proposal are:
‒ National Planning Policy Framework (2021)
‒ National Planning Practice Guidance (updated 2019)
‒ GLA Housing SPG (updated 2017)
‒ GLA Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017)
‒ GLA Sustainable Design and Construction (2014)
‒ GLA Accessible London (2014)
‒ GLA Character and Context SPG (2014)
‒ GLA London View Management Framework SPG (2012)
‒ GLA Play & Informal Recreation SPG (2012)
‒ GLA All London Green Grid (2012)
‒ LBTH Planning Obligations SPD (2021)
‒ LBTH Reuse, Recycling and Waste SPD (2021)
‒ LBTH High Density Living SPD (2020)
‒ Building Research Establishment (BRE) ‘Site layout planning for daylight and
sunlight: a guide to good practice’ (2022).

7. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

7.1 The key issues raised by the proposed development are:

i. Land Use
ii. Housing
iii. Design & Heritage
iv. Neighbour Amenity
v. Transport
vi. Environment
vii. Infrastructure
viii. Local Finance Considerations
ix. Equalities and Human Rights

Land Use

Designations
7.2 Policy SD1 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that the identified Opportunity Areas fully
realise their growth and regeneration potential. The site is situated within the Lower Lea
Valley OA which has the capacity to deliver additional housing and employment spaces.

7.3 The site forms part of the Ailsa Street Site Allocation which includes the area to the north
and south of the application site. The site allocation policy sets out land use requirements
which include housing and a range of employment floorspace, as well as an indicative site
layout in the Site Allocation diagram, as seen in the below figure.

Figure 4. Ailsa Street Site Allocation diagram

Existing uses

7.4 The application site was previously used for industrial activities, increasing car breaking,
vehicle salvage, waste transfer and open storage and scrap yards. The site is currently
under construction for the implementation of the extant consent.

7.5 The applicant has confirmed that Phase 1 of the extant consent was implemented in July
2021, following which the demolition works of previous site structures were completed in
September 2021. It was also stated that the remediation and site preparatory works were
taking place at the time of the submission of the application and were completed early this
year.

7.6 Given that the site is currently under construction for a mixed-use redevelopment, it is not
necessary to consider the loss of previous industrial uses given that was established as part
of the extant consent, which has been implemented.

Proposed residential use

7.7 Increasing housing supply is a fundamental policy objective at national, regional and local
levels. The NPPF encourages the effective use of land through the reuse of suitably located
previously developed land and buildings.

7.8 Policy H1 of the London Plan sets a ten-year target for net housing completions that each
local planning authority should plan for. As such, for the borough is required to deliver
34,730 (3,473 per year) new homes between 2019/2020 and 2028/2029.

7.9 At the local level, policy S.H1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 commits to securing
delivery of at least 58,965 new homes across the borough (equating at least 3,931 new
homes per year) between 2016 and 2031.
7.10 The site’s inclusion within the Ailsa Street Site Allocation earmarks the site for significant
housing delivery which would contribute to the borough’s housing stock. As such, the
principle of the residential is strongly supported.

Proposed commercial and retail uses

7.11 Policy SD7 of the London Plan states that development proposals should ensure that
commercial floorspace relates to the size and the role and function of a town centre and its
catchment.

7.12 Policy S.TC1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 defines a network of town centres and
describes their role and function in the borough. For site outside of a town centre, such is the
application site, other policies relate to the provision of retail and other uses to ensure the
location and amount of such uses is appropriate.

7.13 Local Plan policy D.TC3 requires a sequential test and an impact assessment for individual
units that exceed 200 square metres outside of the borough’s Major, District and
Neighbourhood centres. In the same locations, Local Plan policy D.TC4 only supports the
delivery of financial and professional services where they are local in scale.

7.14 Policy D.TC5 of the Local Plan provides details on the desired locations of cafés and
restaurants in the borough.

7.15 The proposal includes the delivery of 1,548 sqm of commercial floorspace under Use Class
E. The proposed commercial floorspace would be delivered as follows: two smaller units in
block C and two larger units in blocks A and B. In block M, a small unit is proposed on the
ground floor in the north-western corner of the building, whilst the remainder of the space is
proposed within the southern part of the ground floor and first floor.

7.16 The submission documents do not specify any particular type of the proposed commercial
floorspace, and given the flexibility of Use Class E, this can incorporate various different
uses from retail, financial and professional services, to cafés and restaurants.

7.17 When compared to the extant scheme which delivered 2,954 sqm of mixed commercial use,
the proposed development would deliver significantly less commercial floorspace. Whilst this
is likely to result in the decrease in the employment levels between the two schemes, it is not
considered that this would have an adverse effect on the quality of the proposed scheme.

7.18 The level of the commercial floorspace is considered appropriate for the site which is outside
of a town centre, and it is considered that the provided space would still have the opportunity
to deliver a range of floor sizes as required by the Ailsa Street Site Allocation policy.

Conclusion

7.19 Notwithstanding that the proposed uses reflect the extant consent which has been formally
implemented on the site, the above assessment concludes that the proposed uses are
considered acceptable in terms of land use and in accordance with the relevant planning
policies.

Housing

7.20 Development Plan policies set out a number of requirements which guide residential
development in the borough.

7.21 The proposed development would provide a total of 952 residential units, out of which 35.5%
would be affordable housing, based on the habitable room calculation. The housing mix of
the proposed units is set out in the table below, and a detailed assessment is provided in the
following sections.
 Unit Size/ Tenure Market Intermediate Affordable Total
rented

Studio 139 0 0 141

1-bedroom unit 195 55 24 274

2-bedroom unit 238 23 75 335

3-bedroom unit 91 28 67 185

4-bedroom unit 4 3 10 17

Total 667 109 176 952

Table 1. Proposed housing mix.

Figure 5. Proposed distribution of housing tenure across the site.

Key: Blue – private units, Green – intermediate units, Purple – affordable rented units.

7.22 It should be noted that whilst the current application considers the proposed housing mix as
a whole, the applicant has not proposed any changes to Phase 1 given its current
construction status. Throughout the pre-application stage, Officers have worked with the
applicant to ensure that the new overall housing mix reflects the Local Plan requirements
through the recalibration of the housing mix in Phase 2, given that the previous application
was based on the previous Local Plan.

7.23 The following two tables set out the housing mixes for Phases 1 and 2, where Phase 1
reflects the extant consent, and it is not proposed to be changed as part of the proposals.
 Unit Size/ Tenure Market Intermediate Affordable Total
rented

Location of Blocks F1, F2, G, H E, J2 I, J1, K, L Phase 1

Studio 25 0 0 25

1-bedroom unit 64 24 24 112

2-bedroom unit 37 22 40 99

3-bedroom unit 18 21 37 76

4-bedroom unit 4 3 10 17

Total 148 70 111 329

Table 2. Proposed housing mix in Phase 1.

Unit Size/ Tenure Market Intermediate Affordable Total

rented

Location of Blocks M B2 A, B, C, C2 Phase 2

Studio 116 0 0 116

1-bedroom unit 131 31 0 162

2-bedroom unit 201 0 35 236

3-bedroom unit 71 8 30 109

4-bedroom unit 0 0 0 0

Total 519 39 65 623

Table 3. Proposed housing mix in Phase 2.

7.24 When compared to the extant scheme, the proposed development would deliver an
additional 167 units in total. With regards to the affordable housing, there would be 53
additional units, out of which 29 would be intermediate and 24 affordable rented units. As a
point of reference, the table below shows the housing mix for the whole site under the extant
consent.

Unit Size/ Tenure Market Intermediate Affordable Total

rented

Studio 73 0 0 73

1-bedroom unit 219 38 38 295

2-bedroom unit 181 20 63 264

3-bedroom unit 76 22 34 132

4-bedroom unit 4 0 17 21

Total 553 80 152 785

Table 4. Consented housing mix.
 Housing Mix and Tenure

7.25 Policies H1 and H10 of the London Plan promotes the provision of a range of unit mix and
sizes having regard to robust local evidence of need where available, to deliver mixed and
inclusive neighbourhoods.

7.26 At the local level, Policy S.H1(2) of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan states that development
will be expected to contribute towards the creation of mixed and balanced communities that
respond to local and strategic need. This will be achieved through amongst other things, the
requirement of a mix of unit sizes (including larger family homes) and tenures to meet local
need on all sites providing new housing.

7.27 Locally specific targets for unit mix and sizes based on the Council’s most up to date
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2017) are set out in part 3 of Policy D.H2 of the
Local Plan.

7.28 The table below sets out the scheme’s housing mix against the policy requirements set out
in policy D.H2.

Market Intermediate Affordable rented

Unit type Policy Scheme Policy Scheme Policy Scheme

Target Target Target

1 bed 30% 50% 15% 50% 25% 14%

(including
studios)

2 bed 50% 36% 40% 20% 30% 43%

3 bed 20% 14% 45% 30% 30% 38%

4 bed 15% 6%
Table 5. Proposed housing mix assessed against the requirements of policy D.H2.

7.29 As it can be seen from the table above, there would be an overprovision of 1-bedroom units
and under-provision of 2-bedroom units in the market and intermediate tenures. There would
also be an under-provision of family-sized homes within both of these tenures, which would
be lower for the market tenure.

7.30 The affordable rented unit mix aims to be the closest to the policy requirements, however, it
should be noted that there would be an under-provision of 1-bedroom units and
overprovision of 2-bedroom units. The proposed delivery of family-sized homes in the
affordable rented tenure would be 44% against the policy requirement of 45%.

7.31 The extant scheme and the consented housing mix were based on the previous, now
superseded Local Plan. The proposed development seeks to increase the delivery of homes
in total and bring them closer to the current policy requirements as much as possible, which
is based on the latest housing needs assessment. This was particularly emphasised by
Officers at the pre-application stage as it represented an opportunity to deliver the
development which is based on a more up-to-date housing needs requirements.

7.32 Given that the proposals do not include any changes to the Phase 1 buildings, the applicant
made efforts to recalibrate the housing mix through the Phase 2 units. Whilst more flexibility
is provided by the policy for the market unit mix, it has been noted that the affordable unit
mix is not fully policy compliant.

7.33 It has been acknowledged that the aspiration to retain Phase 1 buildings as consented
would ensure an earlier delivery of housing on site, as demonstrated by the commencement
of construction works to date. As such, the unit mix is considered in conjunction with such
benefits, including other improvements to the scheme. This is further detailed in the
affordable housing section below.
 Affordable Housing

7.34 Policy H4 of the London Plan sets a strategic target of 50 per cent of all new homes
delivered across London to be genuinely affordable. To secure greater security of affordable
housing delivery, Policy H4 requires major developments which trigger affordable housing
requirements to provide affordable housing through the ‘threshold approach’ to applications.

7.35 Policy H5 of the London Plan sets out the threshold approach on residential developments to
be a minimum of 35 per cent. In order to follow the Fast Track Route which does not require
the submission of viability assessment, applications must meet or exceed the 35%
affordable housing, be consistent with the relevant tenure split, meet other relevant policy
requirements and obligations.

7.36 In addition, part C of policy H5 of the London Plan states that in order to follow the Fast
Track Route, applications must meet or exceed the relevant threshold of affordable on site
without public subsidy, be consistent with the relevant tenure split, meet other relevant policy
requirements to the satisfaction of the borough and demonstrate they have taken account of
the strategic 50 per cent target and have south grant to increase the level of affordable
housing.

7.37 Policy H6 of the London Plan under Part A establishes the split of affordable products that
should be expected from proposals for residential development. It can be summarised from
Part A (1-3) as a minimum of 30 per cent low-cost rented homes, a minimum of 30 per cent
Intermediate products and the remaining 40 per cent to be determined by the Borough as
low-cost rented homes or Intermediate product based on identified needs. The policy also
reiterates that Part A must be met to qualify for the ‘Fast Track’ route.

7.38 At the local level, policy S.H1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires development
to contribute towards the creation of mixed and balanced communities by requiring a mix of
rented and intermediate affordable tenures. Policy D.H2 provides further guidance on
requiring developments to maximise the provision of affordable housing in accordance with a
70% rented and 30% intermediate tenure split.

7.39 The proposed development would provide a total of 35.5% affordable housing which
amounts to 285 affordable housing units. This includes 176 affordable rented and 109
intermediate units, based on a 66:34 split in favour of the affordable rented units. The
intermediate units are proposed as shared ownership whilst the affordable rented units will
be equally split between the Tower Hamlets Living Rent and London Affordable Rent.

7.40 As mentioned above, the applicant has implemented Phase 1 of the extant consent, which
meant that the courtyard blocks within this phase were not able to be subject to the changes
forming part of the proposals. However, the delivery of Phase 1 under the extant consent
ensured an earlier delivery of over 60% of the total affordable housing proposed under the
current scheme, given that Phase 1 included 181 affordable units when compared to 104
affordable units within the proposed Phase 2 blocks. It has been also noted that this
difference in numbers is also due to the higher percentage of smaller units in Phase 2.

7.41 Given the specifics of the application site and the implementation of the extant scheme, as
well as other improvements forming part of the proposed scheme as discussed in the report,
it is acceptable to consider the application under the fast track route, which was also
confirmed as acceptable by the GLA. In addition, the proposals include a slight increase in
affordable housing when compared to the extant scheme. As such, the unit mix and tenure
split of the affordable housing are considered acceptable on balance.

Quality of Residential Accommodation

Space standards

7.42 London Plan policy D6 sets out the minimum internal space standards for new dwellings.
This policy also requires the maximisation of dual aspect dwellings, the provision of sufficient
daylight and sunlight to new dwellings and a minimum floor-to-ceiling height to be 2.5m for at
least 75% of gross internal area (GIA) of each dwelling.
7.43 The above targets are reflected at the local level by Policy D.H3 of the Local Plan which
seeks to ensure that all new residential units meet the minimum standards prescribed within
the London Plan and Housing SPG. Policy D.H3 also requires that affordable housing should
not be externally distinguishable in quality from private housing.

7.44 Private amenity space requirements are determined by the predicted number of occupants
of a dwelling. Local Plan Policy D.H3 sets out that a minimum of 5sqm is required for 1-2
person dwellings with an extra 1sqm provided for each additional occupant.

7.45 In addition, London Plan Housing SPG reiterates the above standards and states that a
maximum of eight dwellings per each core on each floor.

7.46 All of the proposed units would meet the minimum internal space standards. Minimum
private amenity spaces would be provided for all units, either in the form of projecting or
inset balconies, whilst for block M these would be winter gardens along western, northern
and southern elevations. There would an exceedance of the minimum floor-to-ceiling height
for residential units with the minimum being 2.75m for the majority of floors with the
exception of top floors having slightly higher floor-to-ceiling height.

7.47 The submission documents state that the amount of dual aspect units would be 71% and
there would be no single aspect north facing units. Additional details have been provided to
demonstrate that the single aspect units within blocks A, B and C would not be considered
as fully north facing as these units would be oriented less than 45 degrees from due north,
as per the definition in the Housing SPG. Whilst it is accepted that these units would not be
facing due north, it is considered that their orientation would still be north-west facing rather
than fully west-facing. Particular details in relation to daylighting and sunlighting conditions of
these units is provided in the section below which ensures that the units would still have
good levels of natural light.

7.48 Phase 1 blocks and block M would not have more than eight units per core on each floor.
Private residential blocks along the riverside would have more than eight units per core on
each floor on the lower levels, where the residential towers are joined by the lower elements.
For block C where there would be all private units this would amount to 10 units per core per
floor whilst in block B this would include intermediate units within the lower element of the
block, there would be 12 units per core per floor.

7.49 It has been noted that these blocks originally incorporated two staircases up to Level 9 for
block B and Level 10 for block C regardless of the subsequent incorporation of the second
staircase for the upper levels. The creation of separated lobbies on the subject floors with
more than eight units per core per floor would ensure that these spaces have a sense of
ownership by future occupiers in their respective areas.

Wheelchair units

7.50 Policy D7 of the London Plan requires residential developments to provide at least 10% per
cent of dwellings which meet M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings) and all other dwellings
(90%) which meet requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) of the Building
Regulations Approved Document M: Access to and use of buildings.

7.51 Policy D.H3 of the Local Plan requires the same provision as London Plan policy however,
supporting paragraph 9.44 clarifies that all ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ in the Affordable
Rented tenure should meet M4(3)(2)(b), i.e., built to fully accessible standards and capable
for immediate occupation rather than adaptable for wheelchair users.

7.52 Within both phases, the proposed development would provide 11.8% of wheelchair user
dwellings which would meet M4(3) standards. This amounts to 112 units, distributed across
the tenures within the two phases as per the below table. All affordable rented wheelchair
units would be delivered as accessible in accordance with M4(3)2b, while intermediate and
private units would be adaptable units in as per M4(3)2a standards.
 Affordable rented Intermediate Private

Phase 1 18 14 10

Phase 2 10 7 53

Total 28 21 63
Table 6. Proposed wheelchair unit tenure distribution.

7.53 All of the wheelchair units would be provided as 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units. The details
on the distribution of unit sizes across the blocks and tenure have been provided in the table
below.

Tenure Location Number of 2- Number of 3-

bedroom units bedroom units

Private Blocks A, B, C, I, K 11 53

Intermediate Blocks J2 and B2 6 13

Affordable Blocks F1, F2 and M 16 10

7.54 The proposed development missed the opportunity to maximise the number of larger
wheelchair units within the affordable rented tenure as this is where the highest need exists
in the borough. Nonetheless, the proposed provision is considered to be acceptable on
balance and further details on the layout of the wheelchair units will be secured via condition.

Air quality & Noise

7.55 Policy SI1 of the London Plan and D.ES2 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 seek to
ensure that developments adopt appropriate mitigation measures to minimise end users’
exposure to poor quality.

7.56 Policy D13 of the London Plan and D.ES9 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 require
developments to minimise noise and vibration impacts and to ensure that new noise-
sensitive land uses and activities avoid any conflict with existing noise-generating uses by
ensuring good design and mitigation measures.

7.57 The proximity of the application site to the A12 poses poor existing air quality and noise
conditions. Whilst this impact is the highest along the western boundary of the site due to the
drop-off in pollutants when distancing from the pollution source, the proposed development
should demonstrate how these constraints have impacted the design of the scheme.
7.58 Concerns have been raised about the location of the affordable block M given its location
being immediately adjacent to the A12, where the noise pollution and poor air quality
conditions are the highest. Whilst the location of this block reflects the extant consent, the
change to a fully affordable rented block instead of a mix of affordable rented and
intermediate units forms part of the changes to Phase 2 under this application.

7.59 Whilst this still remains a concern, it has been noted that including affordable rented units
within other Phase 2 blocks would potentially create issues regarding the management of
the units. In addition, there be no changes to Phase 1 blocks which creates an additional
difficulty over mixing units in different blocks.

7.60 With regards to the unit layout within block M, the design aimed to ensure that the majority of
the western part of the building is used for vertical movement in the building. There would be
no single units facing the A12, and the private amenity space for these units would be
provided as winter gardens, which is also the case for the corner units facing the courtyard
blocks.

7.61 However, it has been noted that some of these private amenity spaces within block M would
exceed the maximum guideline values of 55dB for such spaces, which is a concern due to
the anticipated impact on future occupiers. As shown in the 3D noise model submitted by the
 applicant, the exceeded values would be within private amenity areas of block M, but also
the upper levels of other blocks.

7.62 It is considered that the applicant has explored sensible and reasonable means to mitigate
the noise impact. The mitigation measures embedded in the scheme include careful
specification of façade elements, plant, acoustically treated ventilation system, reduction of
the ASHP use, restriction of delivery hours and other measures to reduce any noise impact
generated by highways activities within the site.

7.63 With regards to the air quality conditions that will be experienced by the future occupiers of
the development, the proposed scheme has been designed in a way to ensure that these
impacts are minimised or where possible avoided. There would be minimising of the
residential exposure along the ground floor level, particularly in block M where the
commercial uses and workspace are proposed on the ground and first floor, as well as
introduction of landscaping along the A12. The energy strategy seeks to ensure that systems
used in buildings are minimising emissions. In addition, a car park exhaust will be placed at
the roof level to ensure better dispersion of pollutants.

7.64 As a result, it is considered that the proposed scheme will minimise the adverse impact from
the A12 onto the future occupiers, and details will be secured via conditions.

Privacy, Outlook & Sense of Enclosure

7.65 Policy D.DH8 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires new development to maintain
good levels of privacy and avoid an unreasonable level of overlooking or unacceptable
increase in the sense of enclosure. The supporting text of the policy suggests that a distance
of approximately of 18m is likely to reduce inter-visibility to a degree acceptable to most
people. In addition, the policy seeks to ensure new and existing habitable rooms have an
acceptable outlook.

7.66 The positioning of the proposed residential blocks used the opportunity to ensure that the
minimum distance between habitable rooms has been secured as much as possible. This
would be the case for most of the units, apart from the distance between the courtyard
blocks which would be 14m. It should be noted that this would only be within the north-facing
habitable rooms of the southern courtyard block and south-facing habitable rooms of the
northern courtyard block. Residential units facing internal side of the courtyard blocks would
maintain more than 18m distance between the habitable rooms.

7.67 There would be slightly lower distances between buildings in Phase 1 and Phase 2. Between
the northern courtyard blocks and block C to the east, there would be 16.7m distance,
however it has been noted that the angle of units within block C would ensure that the
privacy between these blocks is safeguarded. Between the southern courtyard block and
block M the distance would be 17.7m between the habitable rooms, which is considered a
minor shortfall and as such, is considered acceptable.

7.68 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would achieve acceptable levels of
outlook and privacy and where separation distances between habitable rooms would be
below 18m, this is considered acceptable on balance as explained in the above assessment.

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing

7.69 Policy D.DH8 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires the protection of the amenity
of future residents and occupants by ensuring adequate levels of daylight and sunlight for
new residential developments following the methodology set out in the most recent version
of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight
and Sunlight’ (2022) and British Standard EN17037:2018 “Daylight in building”.

7.70 The application is accompanied by an internal daylight, sunlight and overshadowing

assessment relating to the proposed development, which has been prepared by Lichfields.
Throughout the course of the application, the applicant submitted an updated assessment
report to reflect the changes in the BRE guidance, which has been included as Appendix 15
of the Environmental Statement Further Environmental Information (April 2023).
7.71 The assessments in relation to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing for the proposed
scheme have been undertaken and presented with the cumulative schemes in place, which
includes the Islay Wharf and Former Poplar Bus Depot to the south-east along the River
Lea, and Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme situated at the opposite side of Lochnagar Street.

7.72 The Council appointed specialist consultants BRE for the review of the submitted information
relating to the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.

Daylight methodology

7.73 The updated BRE guidance replaces the previous primary method of assessment of new
build accommodation through calculating the average daylight factor (ADF) and No Sky Line
(NSL). The BRE sets out the methods for assessing daylight withing a proposed building
based on methods detailed in BS EN 17037: 2018 “Daylight in buildings”, the UK National
Annex of the British Standard and the CIBSE publication LG 10 ‘Daylighting – a guide for
designers’.

7.74 BS EN 1730 suggests two possible methodologies for appraising daylight in new
developments, which includes the illuminance method and the daylight factor method.

7.75 The first relates to the Illuminance Method which uses Climate Based Daylight Modelling
(CBDM) to predict daylight illuminance using sun and sky conditions derived from standard
meteorological data (climate or weather data). The second method for appraising daylight in
new developments is the Daylight Factor Method. This involves calculating the median
daylight factor on a reference plane. In this regard the BRE guidance states that the daylight
factor is the illuminance at a point on the reference plane in a space, divided by the
illuminance on an unobstructed horizontal surface outdoors.

7.76 The applicant has focused on the first method which allows the prediction of absolute
daylight illuminance based on the location and building orientation, in addition to the
building’s daylight systems (shading systems for example). Annex A within the BS EN 17037
proposes values of target illuminances and minimum target illuminances to exceed 50% of
daylight hours. One of the methodologies that can be used to interrogate data is Spatial
Daylight Autonomy (SDA) which is designed to understand how often each point of the
room’s task area sees illuminance levels at or above a specific threshold.

7.77 BS EN 17037:2019 National Annex sets out minimum illuminance levels (300lx) that should
be exceeded over 50% of the space for more than half of the daylight hours in the year.
However, the National Annex suggests that these targets can be challenging to achieve
within residential settings, particularly in areas of higher density and so suggests lower
targets can be considered in this situation and as such reduced targets are suggested within
BS EN 17037:2018 and they are provided so as to be comparable with the previous BRE
guidance for ADF. Therefore, the relevant targets are 100 lux for bedrooms, 150 lux for living
rooms and 200 lux for living/kitchen/diners, kitchens and studios. The BRE guidance
specifies however, that where a room has a shared use, the highest target should apply. For
example, in a bed sitting room in student accommodation, the value for a living room should
be used if students would often spend time in their rooms during the day.

7.78 In addition to this, the applicant has also presented the results using the Average Daylight
Factor (ADF) methodology, which was used in the previous editions of the BRE guidance
and the former British Standard, which recommend the minimum ADF values of 1% for
bedrooms, 1.5% for living rooms and 2% for kitchens. If a space has an ADF of 5%, it will
not normally need supplementary electric lighting provided the uniformity is satisfactory.
Where a room has a shared use, the higher minimum value should apply.

Daylight assessment

7.79 For the assessment of the target illuminance method, the applicant has used factors
presented are included in the table below. Whilst these incorporate all factors which would
be considered, it has been noted that these are at the upper end of the guidance where light
surface finished have been specified. In their review, BRE have also commented on the
potential overestimation of the maintenance factor for the balcony areas and frame
 correction factor. It has also been noted that no balcony reflectance was included in the
report and that the glazing transmittance used is reasonable.

Table 7. Factors used in the target illuminance assessment.

7.80 The applicant clarified factors used in the calculations, including that 0.4 has been used for
floor reflectance and 0.81 for ceiling reflectance. The factor relating to the below working
plane would not be relevant as this is used in the calculation of ADF and as such it is not
relevant to the target illuminance method.

7.81 From the applicant’s response, it would appear that there would be mainly the use of light-
coloured paint and finishes internally within the flats, however, it is not clear how this would
be maintained by future residents, and as such, there are concerns about the potential
overestimation of the results.

7.82 From the submitted assessment, 1641 out of total 2560 of habitable rooms would meet the
target illuminance, which presents 64% of the whole development. For specific room uses,
this means 77% of all bedrooms meeting the 100 lux over at least 50% of the reference
plane, 52% of the kitchen/ dining area meeting the kitchen recommendation of 200 lux, and
20% of the living areas meeting the 150 lux target recommendation. For other spaces, 44%
of the combined living/kitchen/dining spaces and 20% of studio flats would meet the target
recommendation of 200 lux over 50% of the points on the reference plane for half of the
daylight hours of the year.

7.83 The table below summarises the results for rooms meeting the recommendations across
each block and room type.
 Table 8. Habitable rooms within the proposed development meeting the BRE guidelines.

7.84 With regards to the analysis which assesses the ADF, it has been concluded in the
applicant’s assessment that 1728 out of 2560 rooms would meet the ADF. This represents
68% of habitable rooms throughout the proposed development. In terms of specific room
uses, the table below sets out the results according to the room type, which would have
different ADF targets.

Room type ADF target Habitable rooms meeting the

ADF target

Living/ dining/ kitchen 1.5% (for a living room) 60%

Kitchen 2% 43%

Kitchen/ dining 2% (for a kitchen) 38%

Living room 1.5% 3%

Bedroom 1% 82%
Table 9. ADF summary table for the proposed development.

7.85 BRE have raised in their review that some of the analysed rooms appear to have been
labelled incorrectly. Whilst it has been noted this includes several omissions, the ADF test
has been provided as a supplementary set of information, given that the proposed scheme
falls within the transitional arrangements between the two BRE guidance documents, where
the applicant has updated the assessment throughout the course of the application to
demonstrate the assessment against the 2022 BRE guidelines.

Sunlight methodology

7.86 With regard to the assessment of sunlight, the BRE guidance refers to BS EN 17037
criterion that the minimum duration of sunlight exposure in at least one habitable room of a
dwelling should be 1.5 hours on March 21st. Medium and high sunlight targets are set at 3
and 4 hours respectively. The assessment is undertaken at a reference point located
centrally to the window’s width and at the inner surface of the aperture (façade and/or roof).

7.87 In general, a dwelling which has a particular requirement for sunlight will appear reasonably
sunlit if at least one main window faces within 90 degrees due south and a habitable room,
preferably a main living room, can receive a total of at least 1.5 hours of sunlight on 21st
March. This is assessed at the inside centre of the window(s); sunlight received by different
windows can be added provided they occur at different times and sunlight hours are not
double counted.

Sunlight assessment

7.88 The result presented by the applicant indicate that 1137 out of a total 2560 rooms analysed
would meet the sunlight provision, which represents 44% of all habitable rooms. However,
as noted by BRE, from the numerical result it would appear that at least 50% would meet the
minimum recommendation of 1.5 hours received on 21st March.

7.89 With regards to living areas, 464 out of 918 spaces representing 51% of living/kitchen/dining,
living rooms and studio flats, would meet at least the minimum requirements. For kitchen
 areas, the compliance rate would be 74% while 98% of bedrooms would also meet the
minimum BRE guidelines.

7.90 Overall, 598 out of 952 units, or 63%, would have at least one room meeting at least the
minimum sunlight hours recommendation. While this is not considered to be high, it has
been noted that the proposed courtyard buildings within Phase 1 can be challenging for
meeting sunlight due to their layout, and buildings within Phase 2 would be all tall, with
additional of the Islay Wharf tall building to the south-east corner.

Overshadowing methodology

7.91 The assessment of sunlight and overshadowing to the amenity areas within the development
has been undertaken in accordance with the BRE guideline ‘2 hours sun on ground’ test , on
21 March (Spring Equinox). The BRE guidelines recommend that at least 50% of the
amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21 March.

Overshadowing assessment

7.92 The submitted overshadowing assessment identified 1- open spaces within the proposed
development, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 6. Analysed open spaces within the proposed development.

7.93 All but two analysed spaces would meet at least two hours of sun on ground on 21st March,
both of which would be within Phase 1. For the internal courtyard of blocks I-L (A2), at least
46% would meet the two hours on 21st March, which would be marginally under the BRE
recommendation. The other area below the recommendation for sunlight provision would be
area to the north of blocks E-H (A7), which would meet only 20% of two hours on 21st March.
This space would provide a small area dedicated to child play space.

7.94 All analysed open spaces within Phase 2 would meet the minimum sunlight
recommendation. It has been that that the riverside park area incorporating most of the
publicly accessible child play space and amenity area would meet 66% of sunlight on
ground.

7.95 Overall, most of the proposed open space would meet the minimum sunlight requirements.
One of the child play spaces would have a significantly low percentage of sunlight on ground
on 21st March, it has been noted that this is a very small area and situated immediately
behind the northern courtyard block. Whilst this is not ideal, it is considered acceptable on
balance.

Conclusion on Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

7.96 From the above assessments, it is not considered that the proposed development as a
whole would provide particularly high levels of daylight and sunlight for future occupiers.
However, there are several things to note. There are no changes proposed within the
 courtyard blocks forming part of Phase 1 and as such, the level of daylighting and
sunlighting conditions for these units would remain as consented.

7.97 The proposed Phase 2 blocks seek to improve the consented scheme in terms of site layout
by providing a more consolidated open space along the river, and additional communal
amenity spaces for the riverside blocks which the extant consent did not provide. With
regards to block M, while the layout of this block would remain largely the same as
consented, it would resolve the issue of access to the Thames Water sewer along the
southern edge.

7.98 Throughout the pre-application process, concerns have been raised about the positioning of
the riverside blocks as these would result in the north-west and north-east elevation units
and whilst these would not be north-facing, they would experience lower levels of daylight
and sunlight. However, there is a need to balance other improvements of the proposed
scheme when compared against the consented permission and as such, the daylighting,
sunlighting and overshadowing conditions for the proposed development are considered
acceptable on balance.

Fire safety

7.99 London Plan (2021) policy D12 requires all major applications to be submitted with a Fire
Statement produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor, demonstrating how the
development proposals would achieve the highest standards of fire safety. The policy sets
out the requirements in terms of details that Fire Statement should contain.

7.100 The application is supported by a Fire Statement prepared by Atelier Ten, and a fire
statement form completed as per the requirements of the Planning Gateway One process
under the Health and Safety Executive. Further information has been presented by the
applicant throughout the course of the application, particularly in relation to the incorporation
of a second staircase to blocks A, B, C and M, all of which are buildings over 30m in height.

7.101 Following the consultation with the HSE, it has been confirmed that the proposed fire
strategy for the site is considered suitable and the HSE are content with the submitted
information.

7.102 The most recent consultation on the fire safety legislation brought up the question of a
second staircase being required for buildings over 18m in height, which would be applicable
to the courtyard blocks given that their height would meet this threshold. However, it has
been noted that the courtyard blocks have been implemented under the previous permission
for the site, with their construction works progressing on site.

7.103 Overall, it is considered that the proposed fire strategy for the proposed development is
considered appropriate, as confirmed by the HSE. Any implications from the 18m threshold
for the second staircase will need to be considered by the applicant, once the transitional
arrangement have been confirmed for properties which have commenced works on site.

Communal Amenity Space & Play Space

7.104 The proposed strategy for the provision of communal amenity and child play spaces for the
whole site is provided in the figure below. These are separately discussed in the following
sections.
 Figure 7. Location of the proposed child play spaces across the site.
Key: Yellow: 0-5 years old; Green: 5-11 years old; Blue: 12+ years old;
Purple – communal amenity space.

Communal amenity space

7.105 Policy D.H3 (Part C) of the Local Plan requires that for major developments (10 residential
units or more) communal amenity space should be provided. The provision should be
calculated based on 50sqm for the first 10 units with an additional 1sqm for every additional
unit thereafter.

7.106 The proposed development would deliver a total of 5,012 sqm of communal amenity space
against the minimum requirement of 992 sqm for the whole development. The proposed
communal amenity space would be provided both internally and externally, and across all
blocks, as shown in the figure above.

7.107 The proposed provision of communal amenity spaces for the courtyard blocks within Phase
1 remains the same as secured in the extant consent. This includes a total of 2526 sqm
provided within the internal courtyards, as well as a part of a roof terrace provided on Level 7
of the blocks.

7.108 In Phase 2, there would be a total of 2,486 sqm of communal amenity space, the majority
would be provided within Blocks A and B where a total of 1,184 sqm space is proposed
internally on the first floor with spaces such as multi-functional room, co-working space and
gym and vitality poo. 870 sqm externally on the podium (Level 02) level between blocks A
and B, as well as on the rooftop terrace of block B2. Block C would have 240 sqm of
communal amenity space provided on the top Level 10 of the lower element of this block.

7.109 For block M, the applicant has originally proposed a smaller communal amenity space on
every other floor, which were subsequently reduced in sized and located on every floor of
this block as a result of the introduction of a second staircase. This was considered to be a
poor provision of communal amenity space for this block.

7.110 The applicant made further changes and proposed the open space of about 192 sqm to the
south of block M to serve as communal amenity space for future occupiers of this block.
 Whilst concerns have been raised due to the proximity of this space to the A12, it has been
noted that the landscaping would be included to mitigate the air and noise impact. In
addition, this is considered to provide a more appropriate usable space for occupiers of
block M than what was previously proposed.

7.111 Overall, it is considered that the proposed provision of communal amenity space within the
proposed development would be acceptable. Each of the blocks would have their own
respective communal amenity space which would provide convenient access to these
spaces and in addition, the public open space along the riverside would also be used by
future residents. Further detailing for these spaces would be secured via condition.

Child play space

7.112 Policy S4 of the London Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals that include
housing make provision for good quality accessible play and informal recreation and enable
children and young people to be independently mobile.

7.113 The GLA’s Play and Recreation Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012) provides detailed
guidance on the appropriate distances to local play spaces as well as guidance on the
needs of the different age groups in terms of equipment and scale. The SPD also provides
details on the needs of different age groups.

7.114 At a local level, Policy D.H3 requires major development to provide a minimum of 10sqm of
high-quality play space for each child. The child yield should be determined by the Tower
Hamlets Child Yield Calculator.

7.115 The following table provides details on child yield generated by the proposed development
and the minimum child play space requirements based on the LBTH Child Yield and Play
Space calculator.

Age Child yield Required play space Provided play space

[sqm] [sqm]

0-4 156 1,558 1,555

5-11 122 1,222 1,290

12-18 106 1,064 939

Total 384 3,844 3,784

Table 8. Child yield, child play space requirements and provision for the proposed
development.

7.116 As shown in Figure 7 above, the proposed child play space would be provided in various
spaces across the proposed development, both within the blocks and on the ground level as
publicly accessible. The amount of the provided floorspace would fall short for 60 sqm
against the policy requirements and this would be mainly for age group 12-18, however it
has been noted that there would be a slightly overprovision of space for 5-11 age group and
as such, this is considered acceptable on balance.

7.117 For Phase 1, similarly as per the communal amenity space, the proposed child play space
would be located within the internal courtyards and roof terrace level. With regards to Phase
2, the majority of the proposed child play space would be located within the landscape and
would be publicly accessible while the remainder of the space would be provided on a
podium level between blocks A and B, as well as the roof terrace level of the smaller
elements of blocks B and C.

7.118 It is considered that most of the child play space would be situated in appropriate locations,
however, some concerns were raised with regards to the location of the child play space to
the north and south of block M, given the proximity to the A12 which is a significant air and
noise pollution source. However, it has been noted that these spaces would aim to provide
 greenery, and there would be additional landscaping along the A12, which would reduce the
pollution to some extent. As such, this is considered acceptable on balance.

7.119 Details on the principle of child play spaces has been provided in the submitted Landscape
Design and Access Statement. These are considered to be acceptable and further details
would be secured via condition.

7.120 Overall, the proposed child play space provision is considered acceptable and would
contribute to the delivery of residential amenities for the proposed development, which would
also be publicly accessible promoting a wider social cohesion in the area.

Density

7.121 The London Plan no longer incorporates a density matrix unlike its predecessor. Policy D3 of
the London requires that all development must make the best use of land by following a
design-led approach that optimises the capacity of sites.

7.122 Policy D4 of the London Plan requires all proposals exceeding 30 metres high and 350 units
per hectare to demonstrate they have undergone a local borough process of design scrutiny.

7.123 Policy D.DH7 of the Local Plan requires that where residential development exceeds the
density set out in the London Plan, it must demonstrate that the cumulative impacts have
been considered (including its potential to compromise the ability of neighbouring sites to
optimise densities) and any negative impacts can be mitigated as far as possible.

7.124 Whilst the new London Plan is now part of the development plan, the Housing SPG remains
an adopted document and a material consideration in planning decisions. The criteria set out
in paragraphs 1.3.51 to 1.3.52 of the Housing SPG requires the consideration of a number of
factors including but not limited to local context and character, transport capacity, design and
place making principles, residential mix and associated play provision, appropriate
management and design of refuse, recycling and cycle parking facilities and whether the
proposals are located within the type of accessible locations the London Plan considers
appropriate for higher density developments. The requirement to consider all of these factors
have been encapsulated across various interlinked policies contained within both London
Plan and Local Plan policies.

7.125 The LBTH High Density Living SPD provides guidance on how density is calculated. For the
proposed mixed-use development which seeks to provide 952 units within the 2.39 hectare
site area, an indicative density would amount to 1,102 habitable rooms per hectare. As such,
the development is considered to be high density. The acceptability of the proposed density
and design is further discussed in the sections below.

Design & Heritage

7.126 The importance of good design is emphasised in Chapter 12 of the NPPF and the National
Design Guide and development Plan policies which require high-quality designed schemes
that reflect local context and character and provide attractive, safe and accessible places
that safeguard and where possible enhance the setting of heritage assets. Therefore, within
the borough, it is expected that development must do more than simply preserve, the
requirement is to enhance and improve.

7.127 London Plan (2021) policy D3 promotes the design-led to optimise site capacity. The policy
requires high density development to be located in sustainable location, in accordance with
London Plan (2021) D2 which requires density of developments to be proportionate to the
site’s connectivity and accessibility.

7.128 Furthermore, policy D3 requires developments to enhance local context by delivering

buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness, as well as to respond to
the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and
characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage
assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character.
7.129 London Plan policy D4 requires development proposals referable to the Mayor of London to
have undergone at least one design review early on in their preparation before a planning
application is made. As mentioned previously, the proposals had been reviewed and
commented on by the Council’s expert design panel.

7.130 Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy S.DH1 outlines the key elements of high quality design so
that the proposed development are sustainable, accessible, attractive, durable and well-
integrated into their surroundings. Complementary to this strategic policy, Local Plan policy
D.DH2 seeks to deliver an attractive, accessible and well-designed network of streets and
spaces across the borough.

Site Layout and Access

7.131 The application site is clearly defined with a set of the existing defined structures and places.
The site sits between the A12 and the River Lea. Its southern boundary is formed by
Lochnagar Street and the north of the site adjoins the allocated waste site. In principle, the
proposed site layout seeks to mirror the extant consent whilst using the opportunity to
improve on it, particularly with respect to the delivery of public spaces and landscaping.

7.132 The positioning of the buildings has been informed by the key route within the site, as well as
to the wider area. This includes the realignment of Ailsa Wharf, continuation of the Bromley
Hall Road and the creation of an east-west route within the central part of the site linking the
riverside park and towpath to the A12.

7.133 Given that there are no changes proposed to Phase 1, the courtyard blocks would remain as
consented with a perimeter block wrapping around an internal courtyard. Block M on the
A12, whilst in the same position, has been made smaller in footprint when compared to the
extant consent due to the identification of a Thames Water infrastructure along the south of
block M, which would require different access arrangements ensuring that there is no built
structure over it. The proposed development would use the opportunity to provide a
welcoming arrival point in this corner of the site.

7.134 Within the eastern half of the site, both the extant consent and proposed development
include the delivery of three residential towers. The proposals aimed to consolidate the two
residential towers with a podium level between them, which was previously a standalone
block D reaching 6-8 storeys in height. This has allowed for a creation of a more
consolidated open spaces along the riverside, which is strongly supported.

7.135 It is considered that a more consolidated open space instead of a set of interlinking smaller
space would use the opportunity to ensure that the new open space along the riverside is
perceived as publicly accessible. Within the south-eastern corner of the site, the proposed
development would continue to provide the safeguarded area for the landing of the future
Lochangar bridge in this location.

7.136 With regards to the buildings within Phase 2, the building shape of block M would remain the
same as a simple rectangular building. The proposed riverside blocks have been designed
with a diamond-shaped footprint which would add visual interest to the area and as such, it
is supported.

7.137 Overall, the proposed site layout is considered acceptable and would enhance the
permeability of the site and the wider area. A more formal arrangement of buildings along
the western part of the site closer to the A12 and a more organic, landscaped arrangement
along the easter part closer to the River Lea is supported.

Townscape, Massing and Heights

7.138 London Plan (2021) policy D9 provides a strategic guidance for tall buildings in the London
area. The policy also sets out criteria which against which development proposals should be
assessed and these include visual, functional and environmental impacts. With regards to
visual impacts, the policy states that tall buildings should make a positive contribution to the
existing and emerging skyline and not adversely affect local or strategic views. Tall buildings
 should also reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context and aim legibility
and wayfinding.

7.139 In general, Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy S.DH1 requires developments to be of an
appropriate scale, height, mass, bulk and form in its site and context. More specifically, Local
Plan policy D.DH6 seeks to guide and manage the location, scale and development of tall
buildings in the borough. The policy identifies five tall buildings clusters in the borough and
sets out principles of each of them.

7.140 Policy D.DH6 sets out a number of principles for tall buildings, including that development
must demonstrate, amongst other, how they will be of appropriate height, scale and mass
that are proportionate to their role, function and important of the location in the local,
borough-wide and London context, taking account of the character of the immediate context
and of their surroundings. The policy also requires developments to enhance the character
and distinctiveness of an area and provide a positive contribution to the skyline.

7.141 The site is not situated within a designated Tall Buildings Zone, and as such part 3 of policy
D.DH6 would be applicable which provides guidance for tall buildings outside of these
zones. Such developments should demonstrate how they will:

 Be located in areas with high levels of public transport accessibility within town centres
and/or opportunity areas

 Address deficiencies in the provision of strategic infrastructure

 Significantly strengthen the legibility of a Major, District or Neighbourhood Centre or

mark the location of a transport interchange or other location of civic or visual
significance within the area, and

 Not undermine the prominence and/or integrity of existing landmark buildings and tall
buildings zones.

7.142 The explanatory text for Policy D.DH6 emphasises that in such locations, tall buildings will
be expected to serve as landmarks and unlock strategic infrastructure provision (such as
publicly accessible open space, new transport interchanges, river crossings and educational
and health facilities serving more than the immediate local area) to address existing
deficiencies and future needs (as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and other
relevant strategies).

Principle of tall buildings

7.143 The proposed developments includes buildings ranging from 3-23 storeys in height. The
proposed courtyard buildings would range between 3-8 storeys in height, block M would be
12 storeys in height, while the riverside buildings would be the tallest buildings proposed
reaching heights of 22 and 23 storeys.

7.144 The site benefits from low Public Transport Accessibility Level between 1a-3 where 6b
constitutes the best PTAL rating. The site is not situated within a town centre but lies within
the Lower Lea Valley and emerging Poplar Riverside Opportunity Area, as well as the Poplar
Riverside Housing Zone. The site has been earmarked for regeneration within the Local Plan
as the Ailsa Street Site Allocation.

7.145 With regards to the strategic infrastructure, the proposed development would secure the
safeguarding landing area for the future bridge across the River Lea which would improve
the connectivity in the wider area. In addition, the proposed development would provide a
riverside park which would be publicly accessible and would benefit the wider area.

7.146 The proposed location of tall buildings on the site would mark the future river crossing and
the proposed open space which would be used by future residents of the proposed scheme,
as well as existing and future users within the wider area.

7.147 The proposed development is not in close proximity to any of the designated Tall Building
Zones. In addition, there would be limited impact on any heritage landmarks and designated
 views, as further evidenced in the sections below of this report. The surrounding area to the
application site has been changing in character from a historically industrial to a more
residential urban area, as evident with the recent developments to the south and north of the
site.

7.148 Overall, it is considered that the principle of tall buildings outside of a Tall Building Zone has
been justified in this instance.

Massing and heights

7.149 The main impact in terms of massing and heights from the proposed development would be
as a result of the proposed changes to the Phase 2 buildings given that Phase 1 buildings
would remain as consented and as such, it is not considered necessary to provide a detailed
assessment of these. While for block M, this would include an additional two storeys, for the
riverside buildings the increase in height would be more substantial.

7.150 The consented riverside buildings followed an increase in height north to south. The
proposed changes seek to create a more varied townscape, particularly when being
considered against the recent development in the area. The proposed development uses the
opportunity to respond to the emerging context of the wider area, which is considered
acceptable.

Figure 8. View of the proposed development from the A12.

7.151 During the application stage, one of the principles established and agreed with the applicant
was that the proposed buildings should ensure that the consented building at Islay Wharf
remains as the most prominent feature. The proposed heights respond to this principle.

7.152 The proposed changes to the Phase 2 blocks also include the changes to the form of the
buildings which would be more slender looking buildings with a visually interesting
appearance, as detailed in the following section. In addition, the proposed changes would
result in the overall improvement to the consented scheme and as such, these are
considered acceptable.

7.153 Overall, the proposed massing, height and scale of the proposed buildings within Phase 2 is
considered acceptable and appropriate for the site.

Architecture & Appearance

7.154 For the Phase 1 building, mid-rise courtyard blocks would comprise solid brickwork with
simple detailing and a less formal arrangement of ‘’punched’ openings for windows. On
external facades, balconies are inset so as not to clutter street facades whereas within the
courtyards they are external to maximise views beyond the development.
7.155 The design of the riverside buildings has taken clues from the heritage of the site and the
Calico historical activity that took place in the area, which has resulted in the interest along
the façade being intertwined with different elements. The main principle for the riverside
building is accentuation of the principal facades of the diamond shaped building with
expressed recessed between them.

Figure 9. View from the northern elevation of block M (right) towards east into the proposed
development.

7.156 With regards to block M, the proposed architecture is expressed through three linked
individual volumes with a vertical emphasis. Block M is proposed as a more robust element
which is considered acceptable as the courtyard buildings would provide a subtle transition
to the riverside blocks.

7.157 All buildings would have a mix of projecting and inset balconies, which has been designed to
complement the overall architectural treatment of the proposed buildings.

Materiality

7.158 The proposed buildings would use brick as a primary material and metalwork as secondary
for window frames and balcony balustrades. The riverside buildings would include three
complimentary lighter brick shades as they are defined as waterside buildings. The shades
would be graded from darker to lighter with the increase in height for each of the blocks.

7.159 The lower element of the riverside buildings would be tied with the taller elements, following
the same material strategy and proposing a robust brick in a dark shade, which would also
be used for the base of the waterside buildings. As such, the lower and taller elements would
be visually joint, which is supported.

7.160 For block M, it is proposed to create a specific identify with a medium red brick and a more
robust architectural appearance. Whilst the LBTH design officer questioned the need for a
specific identity for block M, there are no objections to this element. In addition, it has been
noted that this could be an opportunity to activate the A12.

7.161 Overall, the proposed materiality is considered acceptable and further details and samples of
the proposed materials would be secured via condition.

Ground floor frontages

7.162 The proposed commercial uses within block M would activate the ground floor frontage
along the A12 and along the south-eastern corner area along Bromley Hall Road, which is
 supported. A small residential unit within block I of Phase 1 would additional activate this
space.

7.163 The proposals include the activation of the riverside park area with commercial units on the
ground floors of blocks A and B, as well as block C. These units can spill out into the park to
provide activity, as well as ensure the safety during all parts of the day.

7.164 Concerns have been raised by the LBTH design officer about the lack of active frontages
along Lochnagar Street. While the southern courtyard block facing Lochnagar Street would
provide some visual activity with the three storey dwellinghouses, it has been acknowledged
that the southern ground floor frontage of blocks A and B would be given to the cycle storage
and other operational areas. This is of particular importance given the adjacent safeguarded
area for the future bridge across the River Lea.

7.165 Ideally, active frontages would have been provided along Lochnagar Street of blocks A and
B, however, it is acknowledged that spaces such as cycle storage and other maintenance
areas are required for operational purposes of the proposed residential development.
Additional details have been presented to demonstrate how the proposed cycle storage in
this location would aim to ensure a more transparent visual appearance to provide some
activity. In addition, the applicant has sought to address the concerns raised at the pre-
application stage to activate the park in order to ensure its use throughout all parts of the
day.

7.166 It should also be noted that there would be an additional residential entrance along
Lochnagar Street for blocks A and B. It is considered that this would provide some activity,
albeit not to a large extent. However, the details proposed for this area appear to aim in
securing high quality details which would help in addressing issue about the lack of active
frontages in this part of the site.

Figure 10. Proposed residential entrance for blocks A and B on Lochnagar Street

7.167 For other parts of the site, a more residential feel has been proposed along Ailsa Street.
Whilst this is also the case for the route between the southern and northern courtyard
blocks, its direct connection to the A12 underpass would ensure that the pedestrian and
cyclist movement provides some activity along these spaces.

Landscaping & Public Realm

7.168 The proposed design has been developed with a strong focus on landscaping and improving
the extant consent in this respect. The design evolution aimed to create distinctive
landscape character areas across the site, as presented in the figure below.
 Figure 11. Proposed landscape character area.

7.169 The central east-west route has been envisaged as a Green Link, creating an arrival point
along the A12 and direct connection to the riverside park area with planters. Along the full
length of the eastern boundary of the application site, the proposals include the delivery of a
riverside walk which would have intertidal terraces and additional planting.

7.170 The two north-south routes have been designed as neighbourhood streets, which would
incorporate one-way vehicle movement. The proposed design aimed to ensure a pleasant
pedestrian movement, with greenery and some informal seating spaces where available.

7.171 The proposals include smaller area of open space to either side of block M. The space to the
north of block M would serve as a residential corner incorporating child play space. Initially,
the space to the south of block M was envisaged to serve as a commercial corner, however,
after concerns were raised with regards to the poor delivery of communal amenity space for
future units within block M, the proposals have been amended to include the southern area
to cater for block M.

7.172 The Riverside Park is one of the main improvements to the site layout of the extant consent
as it creates a more consolidated open space along the river which would be publicly
accessible. This space would include intertidal terraces and planting supporting biodiversity,
child play space, as well as seating areas and table tennis tables. Along the edge of blocks
A and B, there would be overspilling of the commercial uses, additionally activating this
space.
 Figure 12. Proposed riverside park visualisation.

7.173 Additional publicly accessible child play is proposed to the north of block C, which would also
incorporate a basketball half court and play equipment for children aged 5-11 years old. This
child play space would be accessed from Ailsa Street, but also along the riverside walk.

7.174 With regards to the areas connecting the site with other strategic movement routes, the
proposed development includes a safeguarded bridge landing area in the south-eastern
corner of the application site. Whilst the bridge design and landscaping of the safeguarded
area are developed under a separate planning permission, the applicant has referenced the
emerging bridge design in the illustrative landscaping plan. The applicant has agreed to
deliver the landscaping along the northern part of the safeguarded land, which would be
secured via planning obligation.

7.175 Outside of the application along the western boundary, the proposals include improvements
to the A12, including repaving and re-planting of the area adjacent to block M. As shown in
the figure below, this would benefit entrance to the commercial units within block M, but also
the wider area, particularly when using the underpass and the adjacent bus stop. In addition
to these, the applicant has agreed to contribute with financial obligation to the improvement
to the underpass that TfL are planning to carry out in the future.

Figure 13. Proposed A12 landscaping, leading to block M.

7.176 Overall, the proposed landscaping design is considered to be acceptable, and it would
ensure the delivery of high-quality design of the scheme and future users of the proposed
 spaces. The landscape principles and objectives presented in the submitted Landscape
Design and Access Statement area supported, and additional details will be secured through
a planning condition to ensure that the detailed design of the proposed landscaped area is
carried through to the delivery stage.

Safety & Security

7.177 Policy D11 of the London Plan requires all forms of development to provide a safe and
secure environment and reduce the fear of crime. This is similarly reflected in Local Plan
Policy D.DH2 which requires new developments to incorporate the principles of ‘secured by
design’ to improve safety and perception of safety for pedestrians and other users.

7.178 The proposed development would provide more natural surveillance across the application
site and to its immediate surroundings through the proposed design. This would particularly
be the case along the A12 with the provision of active frontage within the ground floor area
of block M, as well as within the riverside towers, where active ground floor frontages would
face the park area, ensuring the space would be safe to be used throughout different times.

7.179 In general, the proposed development would contribute to the provision and improvements
of more lit spaces along the streets, which would also positively benefit the surrounding
area.

7.180 The Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Officer has been consulted and stated no
objections to the proposed development, subject to further details being provided in a
Secured by Design strategy, which will be secured as a condition.

Built Heritage and Views

7.181 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the statutory
duties for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. Development Plan policies
require developments affecting heritage assets and their settings to conserve their
significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, material and architectural detail.

7.182 The relevant assessments have included in the Environmental Statement as part of two
distinctive chapter. The Built Heritage chapter deals with above-ground built heritage
impacts, assessing the effects of the proposed development on the significance of the area’s
heritage assets. The Townscape and Views chapter gives consideration to townscape and
visual effects through two separate but inter-related assessments consisting of consideration
of the effects on the character and quality of the site and surrounding area, and an
evaluation of the visual effects of the development on views, viewers and visual amenity.

Heritage assets

7.183 The north-western corner of the application site abuts the Limehouse Cut conservation run
which stretches further to the north. The conservation area represents the former industrial
landscape and is characterised by the waterscapes and relationship of the buildings with the
waterspace along the Canal, the River Lea and Bow Creek.

7.184 To the south-west of the application site on the opposite side of the A12 sits the Langdon
Park conservation area whilst further to its south is the Balfron Tower conservation area,
both of which have listed buildings within their boundary with Balfron Tower being grade II*
listed.

7.185 To the south of the application site, on the opposite side of Lochnagar Street behind a strip
of land sits the grade II listed Bromley Hall School. Immediately to the north-west of the
application sits the grade II listed Old Poplar Library and the grade II* listed Bromley Hall
building. Bromley Hall is believed to date from the late C15 and was built as a manor house
while the Old Poplar Library was designed in a classical Beaux Art style.

7.186 Further to the north of the site beyond the existing waste transfer site which abuts the
northern boundary of the application site, sits the grade II listed converted Former Bow Fire
Station, and the locally listed warehouse building at 23-26 Gillender Street and the adjacent
 grade II listed building forming part of the industrial buildings associated with a former
distillery on the site.

7.187 The ES assessment found that there would be no impact on any of the heritage receptors
during both the construction and operation of the proposed development. Whilst in general
there are no objections to the assessment and its conclusion, it should be noted that the
proposed scheme would generally be a highly prominent feature along the Limehouse Cut
conservation area, as well as within the settings of the immediately adjacent listed buildings.
However, it is considered that the proposed development would represent an improvement
on the existing site, particularly given the principles set out in the design, as detailed in the
sections above.

Townscape and strategic views

7.188 London Plan policy HC4 provides requirements on the London View Management
Framework (LVMF). The policy states that development proposals should not harm, and
should seek to make a positive contribution to, the characteristics and composition of
Strategic Views and their landmark elements, as well as the preservation of the landmarks of
World Heritage Sites (WHS). Development proposals in designated views should comply
with the relevant criteria set out in the policy.

7.189 Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 policy D.DH4 reiterates the requirement to comply with the
LVMF requirements and the WHS Management Plans. In addition, this policy requires
development to demonstrate how they preserve or enhance townscape and views to and
from the site which are important to the identity and character of the place.

7.190 The applicant has provided details on the assessed views, which were previously agreed
with the Council’s design officer. These mainly represent the local views in the area, given
that no part of the site generally falls within the views set out in the London View
Management Framework. It should be noted that the Balfron Tower is a borough designated
landmark.

7.191 The assessment concludes that there would be minor to moderate adverse impacts on the
townscape views during the construction period, however, it has been noted that these
would not be significant, and it would be of the during the construction period, which is
considered acceptable.

7.192 The ES concluded that the proposed development once built would have several beneficial
impacts, most of which would not be significant apart from the impact on the townscape of
the site. As concluded in the section above, Officers considered that the proposed
development would sit comfortably within the area’s townscape and it would complement the
existing and emerging character of the wider area.

7.193 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on
the townscape and views, particularly when taking into consideration the emerging context of
the site’s surrounds.

Archaeology

7.194 The application site lies within the Archaeological Priority Area and the proposed
development could have an impact on archaeological remains associated with the early
industrialisation of the area. As such, the application has been referred to the Greater
London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) for comment.

7.195 The proposed development could cause harm to archaeological remains and field evaluation
would be needed to determine appropriate mitigation. It has been noted that some works
have been carried out as part of a pre-commencement condition of the extant consent,
however, further mitigation measures would be secured for an archaeological watching brief
to be undertaken for Phase 2.
7.196 In addition, a condition would be secured for a strategy of appropriate public benefit if
archaeological remains are found which are of significance, as recommended by GLAAS
and identified in the ES review.

Neighbour Amenity

7.197 Development Plan policies seek to protect neighbour amenity safeguarding privacy, not
creating allowing unacceptable levels of noise and ensuring acceptable daylight and sunlight
conditions.

7.198 The existing properties to the north-west corner of the application site include Katherine
Court, Wellspring Close and 45 Gillender Street. The applicant included the consented
scheme for the Leaside Business Centre site, however, it has been noted that this consent
has not been implemented and that the existing container structures on the site are
commercial in use.

7.199 The existing properties to the south include the Bromley Hall School and 40 Leven Road
further to the south. Between the application site and Bromley Hall School sits Plot J of the
Aberfeldy scheme which is currently under consideration. Along the south-east corner of the
application site sits the consented residential Islay Wharf tower, beyond which is the
consented Former Poplar Bus Depot scheme consisting of three residential towers and
lower perimeter blocks along Leven Road.

7.200 The closest neighbouring properties on the opposite side of the A12 to the west of the
application site are 90-152 Teviot Street and Poplar Baptist Church which contains both
religious and residential uses.

Figure 14. Map of neighbouring properties.

Privacy, Outlook & Sense of Enclosure

7.201 Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy D.DH8 indicates a distance of approximately 18 metres
between windows of habitable rooms in order to reduce inter-visibility between these to an
acceptable level.
7.202 With regards to the proximity of the adjoining properties, proposed block M would be more
than 18m distanced from Wellspring Close and Katherine Court properties to the west. As
such, this would ensure that there would be acceptable impact on these properties.

7.203 Wellspring properties would be distanced about 14m from the northern courtyard building
containing blocks E-H, whilst 45 Gillender Street would be between 15.6-16.9m from this
block. It has been noted that the northern courtyard block has been designed with a set back
from the boundary to provide a road and alleviate impact on the adjoining properties. In
addition, it is considered that the impact would be limited and as such acceptable.

7.204 Further to the west for properties on the other side of the A12, including 90-152 Teviot Street
and 164-224 Teviot Street and Poplar Baptist Church, the impact is considered to be limited
given the significant constraint and width of the A12.

7.205 To the south, proposed block J forming part of the Aberfeldy scheme currently under
consideration would be part 2, 3 and 5 storeys in height on the opposite side of Lochnagar
Street. This block would be circa 16m distanced from proposed southern courtyard building
incorporating blocks I-L. It is not considered that this would have a significant impact on the
amenity of the future occupiers of the two schemes.

7.206 Further to the south-west is the consented Islay Wharf building which would be more than
18m distanced from block A, ensuring that any impact is mitigated with sufficient separation
distance between the habitable rooms of the two schemes.

7.207 With regards to futureproofing of the Leaside Business site to the north currently containing
office containers, blocks E-H are set back 15.7m diagonally from the boundary with the
adjoining site which would ensure that any redevelopment of the site would be limited.

7.208 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development has been designed to have regard to
the neighbouring residential properties. None of the separation distances would be
significantly below the policy recommendation of 18m, ensuring that there would be
acceptable impact on privacy, outlook and sense of enclosure enjoyed by neighbouring
properties.

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing

7.209 Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy D.DH8 requires developments to not result in any material
deterioration of daylight and sunlight conditions of surrounding development or unacceptable
level of overshadowing to surrounding open space. Guidelines relating to assessing daylight,
sunlight and overshadowing is contained in the Building Research Establishment (BRE)
handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2011).

7.210 The application is accompanied by an assessment of an impact on daylight, sunlight and

overshadowing of the neighbouring properties and spaces, which has been prepared by
Lichfields. Throughout the course of the application, the applicant submitted an updated
assessment report to reflect the changes in the BRE guidance, which has been included as
a summary in Section 8.0 of the Environmental Statement Further Environmental Information
(April 2023), with more detailed information provided within Appendix 8 of the Addendum to
the Further Environmental Statement (June 2023). The applicant has also submitted a
response to the BRE’s initial review.

7.211 The Council appointed specialist consultants BRE for the review of the submitted
information. BRE have reviewed the information submitted information, including the
response submitted by the applicant.

7.212 The following daylight and sunlight receptors have been assessed for losses, as identified in
the figure below:
 45 Gillender Street
 Katherine Court
 Wellspring Close
 90-152 Teviot Street
  164-224 Teviot Street
 Poplar Baptist Church
 Former Bromley Hall School
 2-22 Leven Road
 40 Leven Road
 Islay Wharf
 Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme.

7.213 The applicant has also included a development within the Leaside Business Centre site
which has approved under PA/19/01628. However, it has been noted that this scheme has
not been implemented during its lawful decision time and has since lapsed. As such, this
report does not include the assessment on this site given that the current uses on the site
are not residential, and any future redevelopment would be subject to a separate planning
approval.

Daylight

7.214 For calculating daylight to neighbouring properties affected by the proposed development,
the BRE guidance contains two tests which measure diffuse daylight (light received from the
sun which has been diffused through the sky). These tests measure whether buildings
maintain most of the daylight they currently received.

7.215 The first test uses the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) to assess the percentage of the sky
visible from the centre of a window. In respect of VSC, daylight may be adversely affected if
after a development the VSC measured at the centre of an existing main window is both less
than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value. The assessment is calculated from the
centre of a window on the outward face and measures the amount of light available on a
vertical wall or window following the introduction of visible barriers, such as buildings.

7.216 The second test is the daylight distribution assessment (No Sky Line) which measures the
distribution of daylight at the working plane within a room where internal room layouts are
known or can be reasonably assumed. In terms of the NSL calculation, daylight may be
adversely affected if, after the development, the area of the working plane in a room which
can receive direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value. The ‘working
plane is a horizontal plane 0.85m above the Finished Floor Level for residential properties.

7.217 The BRE guidelines recommend that both the VSC and daylight distribution are used, where
room layouts are known for the daylight distribution. The applicant has used both tests for all
assessed properties, and the room layouts have been taken from the planning portal or
estate agents’ website for Katherine Court, 45 Gillender Street and 40 Leven Road. For
other properties, it appears that assumptions for layouts were made.

7.218 With regards to the significance criteria against the assessment results, the Council uses a
classification of impact which is applied on a window by window basis. Relative losses of
less than 20% are classed as negligible, 20-30% as minor adverse, 30-40% moderate
adverse, and more than 40% major adverse. This is an objective set of criteria, and the
boundaries of the categories are reasonable, as confirmed by the BRE in their review report.

7.219 However, it must be noted that some of the impacts to the neighbouring properties appear to
be underestimated by the applicant. This has been noted both by BRE in the review, as well
as by Temple in the Environmental Statement review. The assessment in this report clarifies
the significance impact on the neighbouring properties, in accordance with the reviews
carried out by the Council’s specialists.

7.220 Moderate and major effects are deemed to be significant while negligible and minor are
considered to be not significant. As such, the section below focuses on properties where
daylight losses would be moderate adverse as there would be no major impacts on any of
the surrounding properties.

7.221 The submitted assessment identifies a baseline which incorporates all existing neighbouring
buildings and any properties which are under construction. In addition to these, the
 cumulative baseline contains neighbouring developments with planning consent which
includes Islay Wharf and Former Poplar Bus Depot to the south, as well as Plot J within the
Aberfeldy scheme which is currently under consideration by the GLA.

45 Gillender Street

7.222 This receptor is a three storey building comprising of flats, situated to the north-west of the
application site. A total of 18 windows facing the proposed development have been included
in the VSC assessment and 12 rooms were assessed for daylight distribution.

7.223 With regards to VSC, nine of the 18 windows analysed would not meet the BRE guidelines,
with most of these experiencing minor adverse impact. In the cumulative scenario, this would
increase to 12 windows not meeting the BRE guidelines. All 12 rooms analysed would meet
the BRE guidelines for daylight distribution in both scenarios.
Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky 9 8 1 -
Component
Daylight 12 - - -
Distribution
Table 9. Daylight impact on 45 Gillender Street.

7.224 The overall impact on the loss of daylight to this property is considered to be moderate
adverse given that half of the windows would have losses of daylight outside the BRE
guidelines for VSC. However, it has been taken into consideration that all of the rooms would
meet the BRE guidelines for daylight distribution.

Katherine Court

7.225 Katherine Court is a six storey block of flats to the north-west of the application site. The
assessment analysed 59 windows for VSC and 31 rooms for daylight distribution.

7.226 For VSC, 27 windows out of analysed 59 would not meet the BRE guidelines, out of which
15 would be moderate adverse and 6 major adverse. 9 out of analysed 31 rooms would
have daylight distribution outside of the BRE guidelines. The impact would remain the same
in the cumulative scenario.
Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky 32 6 15 6
Component
Daylight 22 4 1 4
Distribution
Table 10. Daylight impact on Katherine Court.

7.227 The overall impact on this property in terms of loss of daylight would be moderate adverse
given that slightly under half of the analysed windows would not meet the VSC guidelines,
most of which would be moderate adverse. In addition, almost a third of rooms would be
affected for daylight distribution.

Wellspring Close

7.228 Wellspring Close is a two storey building containing commercial units and one residential
unit on the ground floor and three further flats on the first floor. The assessment analysed 10
windows for VSC and 3 rooms with a known layout for daylight distribution.

7.229 With regards to the VSC, none of the windows would meet the BRE guidelines, all of which
would have a moderate adverse impact with a single window experiencing minor adverse
impact. Two of the three windows analysed for daylight distribution would meet the BRE
guidelines for daylight distribution whilst the remaining one would experience a moderate
adverse impact.
 Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky - 1 9 -
Component
Daylight 2 - 1 -
Distribution

7.230 It is considered that the overall impact on this property in terms of loss of daylight would be
moderate adverse given that the vast majority of windows would in fact experience a
moderate adverse impact. In addition, a third of the analysed rooms would be affected for
daylight distribution.

90-152 Teviot Street

7.231 This property is a four-storey block situated to the west of the application site, on the
opposite side of the A12. A total of 36 windows were analysed for VSC and 36 rooms were
included in the daylight distribution assessment.

7.232 With regards to VSC, 8 out of 36 windows would fail to meet the BRE guidelines, and these
are all windows on ground, first and second floors facing east towards the proposed
development. Out of these, one window would be marginally below the guidelines. For
daylight distribution, 24 out of 36 analysed rooms would be outside the BRE guidelines. It
should be noted that five of the impacted rooms would be marginally below the guidelines.
The impact would remain the same in the cumulative scenario.
Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky 28 4 - 4
Component
Daylight 12 10 13 1
Distribution
Table 11. Daylight impact on 90-152 Teviot Street.

7.233 The overall impact on this receptor would be moderate adverse given that four of the
windows affected in terms of VSC would have significant losses in the region between 25-
30%, and two thirds of the analysed rooms would have the daylight distribution outside the
guidelines.

Poplar Baptist Church

7.234 Poplar Baptist Church is a three storey building situated to the west of the application site,
on the opposite side of the A12. A total of 8 windows and same number of rooms have been
analysed.

7.235 The assessment shows that the loss of daylight would be negligible as only one window
would be marginally outside the BRE guidelines for VSC. However, there would be a
moderate adverse impact in the cumulative assessment given that only 1 out of 8 windows
would be meet the VSC guidelines, however, all rooms would still meet the daylight
distribution guidelines. It has been noted that the retained VSC values would be between
24.2-26.9%, however, these would represent 30-36% reduction.

40 Leven Road

7.236 40 Leven Road (also known as Atelier Court) is an eight storey block of flats situated to the
south. The assessment analysed 28 windows for VSC and 28 rooms for daylight distribution
for this property.

7.237 All windows and rooms would meet the BRE guidelines. In the cumulative scenario, 8 out of
28 windows would not meet the BRE guidelines and the retained VSC values would be
between 21.9-26.8%. All rooms would still meet the daylight distribution guidelines. This
would be assessed as overall moderate adverse impact in the cumulative scenario.

Islay Wharf
7.238 Islay Wharf is a consented development of two blocks ranging in height between 12 and 21
storeys, situated to the south of the application site on the opposite side of Lochnagar Street
and facing the River Lea along its eastern boundary. A total of 433 windows and 186 rooms
were included in the assessment for VSC and daylight distribution.

7.239 With regards to the VSC assessment, out of 433 analysed windows, 197 would meet the
BRE guidelines while the remaining 236 would fail to meet these, of which 45 would be
moderate adverse and 169 major adverse. With respect to daylight distribution, out of
analysed 186 rooms, 135 would meet the BRE guidelines.
Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky 197 22 45 169
Component
Daylight 135 30 2 19
Distribution
Table 12. Daylight impact on the Islay Wharf consented development.

7.240 The overall impact on the Islay Wharf development would be major adverse given that more
than a third of the analysed windows would experience a major adverse loss and more than
25% of analysed rooms would have reduction in daylight distribution.

Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme

7.241 The applicant has also included buildings within Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme, which is
currently under consideration. These properties are situated on the opposite of the proposed
development on Lochangar Street. A total of 62 windows and 57 windows were analysed.

7.242 With regards to the VSC assessment, out of 62, only 4 windows would meet the BRE
guidelines, while the majority of windows would experience major adverse impact. For the
daylight distribution, 17 out of analysed rooms would meet the BRE guidelines, while the rest
would experience adverse impacts as set out in the table below.
Impact Negligible Minor adverse Moderate Major adverse
adverse
Vertical Sky 4 - 3 55
Component
Daylight 17 10 13 18
Distribution
Table 13. Daylight impact on Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme.

7.243 It is considered that the proposed development would have an overall major adverse impact
on Plot J currently under consideration as part of the wider Aberfeldy scheme, given the
magnitude and number of impact properties, both in relation to VSC and daylight distribution.

Other analysed properties

7.244 With regards to other analysed properties for loss of daylight, there would be minor adverse
impact to 164-224 Teviot Street and negligible impact to Bromley Hall School and 2-22
Leven Road.

Daylight Conclusion

7.245 In summary, the worst impacted properties would be the ones situated immediately adjacent
to the north-west corner of the application site, including 45 Gillender Street, Katherine Court
and Wellspring Close, as well as properties to the south, including consented development
at Islay Wharf and Plot J of the Aberfeldy scheme currently under consideration. For other
properties, the impact would be worsened in the cumulative scenario when additional impact
would be taken into consideration from other neighbouring properties.

Sunlight
7.246 The BRE guidance requires that sunlight tests should be applied to windows of main
habitable rooms of neighbouring properties within 90° of due south. Sunlight availability may
be adversely affected if the centre of the window receives less than 25% of annual probable
sunlight hours or less than 5% of annual probable sunlight hours between 21 September
and 21 March, receives less than 0.8 times its former sunlight hours during either period and
has a reduction in sunlight received over the whole year greater than 4% of annual probable
sunlight hours.

7.247 The significance criteria for sunlight assessment uses the same classification of impact as
detailed above for daylight assessment. Similarly, the assessment in this report clarifies the
significance impact on the neighbouring properties, in accordance with the reviews carried
out by the Council’s specialists.

7.248 Given the location of the proposed development, only four properties have been analysed for
sunlight as these would have windows facing within 90 degree of due south.

7.249 The assessment shows that there would be minor adverse impact to 45 Gillender Street as a
result of two windows out of analysed 18 not meeting the BRE guidelines for winter sunlight.
All other windows would meet the 25% of the annual probably sunlight hours guidelines.

7.250 Out of 34 windows analysed for loss of sunlight within Katherine Court, two would fail to
meet the BRE guidelines for annual probably sunlight hours guidelines whilst 6 would fail to
meet the 5% of winter probably hours. Given that this would only be a small number of
windows affected, the overall impact would be minor adverse.

7.251 For the Wellspring Close properties, a total of 4 windows were relevant for the sunlight
analysis and the impact on these would be negligible.

7.252 Poplar Baptist Church has one window due south which would meet the BRE guidelines for
loss of sunlight. Similarly, all 126 windows within the Islay Wharf development would also
meet the BRE guidelines.

7.253 For other properties, the proposed development would not cause issues to loss of sunlight
as none of the windows face within 90 degree of due south.

Sunlight Conclusion

7.254 Overall, the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties would not
cause significant losses of sunlight, which is considered acceptable.

Overshadowing

7.255 The BRE guidelines recommend that at least half of an amenity space should receive at
least 2 hours sunlight on 21st March. If in an existing outdoor space, the area receiving at
least two hours sun is less than this and less than 0.8 times the former area, then the loss of
sunlight would be significant.

7.256 The submitted assessment does not include an assessment of loss of sunlight to open
spaces. The applicant’s collected information during site visit does not indicate that there are
open spaces in the vicinity of the proposed development where loss of sunlight would be an
issue. This has also been confirmed as acceptable by BRE.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Conclusion

7.257 As outlined above, the proposed development would mainly result in significant impact to the
daylighting conditions of the properties immediately adjacent to the north-west of the
application site, where the proximity of these properties to the application site represents a
particular challenge. In addition to these, one of the blocks on the opposite side of the A12
would also be impacted significantly.

7.258 Officers have acknowledged the indicated impact on the neighbouring properties. The
proposed scheme would have a bigger impact than the consented scheme, albeit on the
same properties, however, it has been noted that the two scheme were assessed against
 the different BRE guidance. In addition, the surrounding area has been changing with
additional sites being redeveloped which influenced a different baseline from the consented
scheme.

7.259 Whilst the proposed impact would be significant, it is considered that the additional housing
units, as well as overall improvements to the layout of Phase 2 would make the scheme
acceptable on balance.

Noise & Vibration

7.260 Part E of policy D13 states that development proposals should not normally be permitted
where they have not clearly demonstrated how noise and other nuisances will be mitigated
and managed.

7.261 Policy D14 of the London Plan requires developments to manage noise by avoiding
significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life, reflecting the Agent of Change
principle and overall ensuring mitigation and minimisation of noise and controlling of any
potential adverse effects.

7.262 Policy D.DH8 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires developments to not crease
unacceptable levels of noise pollution during the construction and life of the development.

7.263 Policy D.ES9 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires development to be designed in
such a way to minimise noise and vibration impacts and identify mitigation measures to
manage impact.

7.264 During the construction stage, the proposed development would have the potential to
adversely impact on the existing neighbouring properties immediately to the north-west, as
well as across the A12, and the properties to the south of Lochnagar Street along Leven
Road. However, the incorporation of the relevant mitigation measures in the Construction
Environmental Management Plan would ensure that the impact would be negligible to minor
for most receptors, with some properties along Leven Road experiencing moderate adverse
effects.

7.265 With respect to the operational stage of the proposed development, there would be a
negligible impact on all existing receptors in the area, however, it has been noted that a
mitigation measure in the form of restriction on opening hours and servicing of the
commercial uses is proposed, which is welcomed and will be secured via condition.

7.266 As such, it is considered that the noise and vibration impact from the proposed development
would be managed in order to safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the
area in general.

Construction Impacts

7.267 Due to the planned redevelopment of various sites in the Lower Lea Valley, it is likely that
the area will experience a significant volume of construction throughout the years.
Conditions will be secured for the submission of further details to demonstrate how the
construction impacts will be managed in a way that minimises any adverse impact to the
area.

7.268 The applicant will be required to adhere to the latest Council’s Code of Construction Practice
to ensure that best practice is followed, which would further minimise the adverse impact. In
addition, planning obligations will be sought towards development co-ordination and
integration set out in the latest Planning Obligations SPD, as well as securing compliance
with the Considerate Contractor Scheme.

Transport

7.269 Development Plan policies promote sustainable modes of travel and limit car parking to
essential user needs. They also seek to secure safe and appropriate servicing.
7.270 The submitted information relating to transport considerations and impact has been included
within Chapter G of the Environmental Statement and the appended Transport Assessment,
as well as the additional environmental information subsequently received throughout the
course of the application.

7.271 The existing site is currently closed for access given the ongoing works within Phase 1. The
hoardings have been placed along the perimeter of the site to ensure public’s safety.

7.272 The majority of the application site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1a-
1b on a scale of 1 to 6 where 6b is considered excellent. The south-western corner of the
site has a PTAL of 3 given its proximity to the adjacent A12 underpass.

Vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and movement

7.273 The application site would be accessed from Lochnagar Street by vehicles. The proposed
design would have a reversed direction of the street accessing the site than consented
scheme, which would be an improvement as the proposed arrangement would improve the
safety.

7.274 The proposed pedestrian access into the site would generally be provided around each of
the buildings, however, the main pedestrian routes would run along the proposed streets.
This would allow for access from Lochnagar Street, the A12 and along the riverside walk.
The figure below shows the proposed residential and commercial access points into each of
the proposed blocks.

Figure 15. Proposed access points to buildings.

Key: Yellow arrows – residential access points, Orange arrows – commercial access points.

7.275 Given the location of the riverside towers around the proposed open space, it has been
noted that they would be provided with access points from the street side, as well as the
park side, which is welcomed as the design uses the opportunity to provide different access
options to future users.

7.276 The proposed cycle access would be similar to the pedestrian given the scheme seeks to
ensure accessibility into the site, however, it has been noted that Lochnagar Street, and
 street between the courtyard blocks and immediately adjacent to block M would form the
principle cycle routes, as presented in the submitted information.

7.277 The proposed development would open up the site in an area which was historically closed
for the wider movement, which is strongly supported. The proposed riverside walkway would
ensure the continuity of the towpath further to the south. In addition, Lochnagar Street would
become a strategic movement route once the bridge across the River Lea is delivered, which
would link the borough with neighbouring Newham.

7.278 Overall, it is considered that the proposed movement strategy along and within the site,
particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, would have a positive impact to the wider area.

Deliveries & Servicing

7.279 The application is supported by an Outline Delivery & Servicing Plan (DSP), as well as
details on the swept paths of the servicing and waste vehicles.

7.280 The proposed deliveries and servicing arrangement, including waste collection, would occur
as a clockwise one-way route within the site accessed from Lochnagar Street.

7.281 The applicant has addressed many of the concerns during the pre-application stage
regarding the deliveries and servicing arrangements. There are no objections to this element
of the scheme, and a final version of the DSP will be secured via condition.

Car Parking

7.282 London Plan policy T6 encourages car free development through the provision disabled
persons parking in line with policy T6.1 which requires the provision of disabled persons
parking for new residential developments ensuring 3% provision from the outset with
additional 7% to be provided upon request. The policy also states that new residential car
parking spaces should provide at 20% of active charging facilities with passive provision for
all remaining spaces.

7.283 Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy D.TR3 requires all residential developments to be permit
free and that all parking associated with the development should be provided off-street.

7.284 The consented scheme secured a ratio of 0.27 car parking spaces per dwelling which
equated to a total of 210 spaces, of which 79 spaces were accessible. The proposed
development would result in a reduction of the overall number of car parking spaces within
the site from 210 to 95, which is supported.

7.285 The proposed car parking will remain as consented for Phase 1 and it would be situated
within the basement level of the courtyard blocks provided as two separated car parking
areas, both of which would be accessed from the eastern internal street. Given that there are
no changes proposed to the courtyard blocks and the proposal would still result in a
significant reduction of the overall number of car parking spaces, the retention of the car
parking within Phase 1 is considered acceptable on balance.

7.286 For Phase 2, the proposals include a limited provision of car parking in order to comply with
the current planning policies requiring developments to be permit-free. The proposed parking
spaces associated with Phase 2 would only be for wheelchair units while remaining units
would be secured as permit free. This would consist of the initially provided 3% amounting to
19 accessible car parking spaces on street level, with further 7% to be provided should the
need arise at a later date. All of the accessible bays would be secured on a lease and needs
basis only, as requested by the LBTH highways officer.

7.287 Of the proposed 95 residential car parking spaces within the whole development, 29 would
be accessible. There would be a provision of 20% active electric vehicle charging points
while the remaining 80% would be passive. For the non-residential component, there would
be a provision of one accessible car park space on the street level. All details related to the
car parking would be secured via condition in a Car Parking Design and Management Plan.
7.288 The proposals also include the provision of two car club spaces within Phase 2, which would
be located on the western side of Ailsa Street. These would be secured on a three-year
membership via a planning obligation.

Cycle Parking and Facilities

7.289 London Plan policy T5 sets out the minimum cycle storage requirements for each of the land
uses. For residential developments, the size of units dictate the minimum standards, while
for non-residential uses, this would depend on the proposed use. It should be noted that the
cycle parking space requirements in the London Plan do not refer to the new Use Class E,
but its predecessor Use Classes.

7.290 As per car parking, the cycle parking for Phase 1 would be delivered in accordance with the
consented scheme, which equates to 524 long-stay and 9 short-stay cycle parking spaces
for 329 residential units.

7.291 For Phase 2, a total of 1,049 long-stay and 16 short-stay cycle parking spaces would be
provided for the proposed 623 residential units and commercial uses. This would satisfy the
minimum requirements and as such, it is considered acceptable. The proposed residential
cycle parking spaces would be situated within the ground floor area of the proposed blocks
and would be provided as a combination of two-tier cycle racks and Sheffield stands. Both
LBTH highways officer and TfL have suggested the provision of more than 5% minimum
provision for oversized and adapted bicycles.

7.292 The proposed short-stay cycle parking spaces would be situated in front of the ground floor
commercial space of block C overlooking the park. For blocks A and B, the proposed short-
stay spaces would be situated within the buildings’ setback ground floor area in the north-
western and south-easter corners.

7.293 For the residential cycle parking, detailed design would be secured via condition, including
compliance with the London Cycle Design Standards, as well as a requirement to maximise
the provision of cycle parking spaces for larger and adapted bikes. In addition, a Cycle
Parking Management Plan will be secured to demonstrate how users with specific needs will
be allocated accessible spaces.

7.294 For the proposed non-residential uses, the applicant has confirmed that there should be
facilities for changing areas and storage. Full details would be secured via condition.

Trip generation

7.295 The submitted Transport Assessment has undertaken a trip generation assessment to
determine the multi modal trip generation of the existing site and the proposed development.

7.296 Clarifications have been provided through additional information to respond to the
clarification queries initially requested by TfL. This included additional details on the three-
hour period details for trip generation, as well as further assessment on the potential impact
on rail, underground and DLR trips to nearby stations.

7.297 Overall, the provided information in relation to the trip generation is considered acceptable,
and the assessment demonstrates that there would be negligible impact on the highway
network from Phase 2 increase.

Travel Planning

7.298 A Framework Travel Plan and Residential Travel Plan have been submitted in support of the
application to demonstrate how the proposals would encourage the use of public transport,
walking and cycling. Final Travel Plans will be secured via condition to ensure that this has
been addressed, which would be secured for construction, and residential and commercial
elements of the proposed development.

Active Travel and Healthy Streets

7.299 The applicant carried out the Active Travel Zone assessment using the Healthy Streets
indicator to key destinations within the 20-minute cycle catchment area for the site.

7.300 The proposed development would contribute to the improvement of the pedestrian and
cyclist movement within and along the perimeter of the application, which would benefit the
wider area. This includes connections to the A12 underpass through Lochnagar Street and
provision of other routes within the site, all of which would have a welcome focus on
prioritising pedestrian and cyclist movement, with the appropriate provision of soft
landscaping.

7.301 Along its eastern boundary, the proposed development would deliver a riverside walk, which
would ensure the continuation of the towpath from the south, as well as access to the
proposed riverside open space also secured as part of the proposed development. These
measures would secure the delivery of the Council’s Green Grid network, which is strongly
supported.

7.302 The proposals include the improvement works along the A12 through the repaving and
replanting of the footway adjacent to proposed block M, and financial contributions for a
delivery of a cycle hire docking station amounting to £220,000 which would be situated
immediately to the east of block M, as well as a financial contribution towards the underpass
improvement works of £250,000. These contributions have been requested by TfL and
accepted by the applicant and will be secured via planning obligations.

7.303 In addition to these, the proposed development would continue to safeguard the landing
area for the bridge proposed at the of Lochnagar Street offering connection to Newham on
the eastern bank of the River Lea. In addition, the applicant has agreed to deliver the
landscaping within the safeguarded area of the bridge, which would represent a continuation
of the Ailsa Wharf landscaping further to the north.

7.304 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would significantly contribute to the
delivery of measures seeking to encourage active travel within the proposed development
and the wider area.

Demolition and Construction Traffic

7.305 The application is supported by an Outline Construction Logistics Plan, draft Construction
Traffic Management Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan. Final versions
of these documents would be secured via a condition to ensure that they consider and
manage the impact on the surrounding area.

Summary

7.306 As detailed in the sections above, it is considered that the proposed development would
comply with the planning policies and objectives which seek to ensure that impact on the
highways network has been minimised and that future occupiers would be provided with
suitable parking facilities.

Environment

Environmental Impact Assessment

7.307 The proposed development represents Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2017 (as amended) and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES)
coordinated by Lichfields.

7.308 Regulation 3 prohibits the Council from granting planning permission without consideration
of the ‘environmental information’ that comprises the ES, including any further information
submitted following request(s) under Regulation 25 and any other information, any
representations made by consultation bodies or by any other person about the
environmental effects of the development.
7.309 The submitted ES assesses the environmental impacts of the development under the
following topics:

‒ Air Quality (Chapter I of the ES);

‒ Archaeology (Chapter M of the ES);
‒ Built Heritage (Chapter N of the ES);
‒ Climate Change and Resilience (Chapter P of the ES);
‒ Daylight and Sunlight (Chapter K of the ES);
‒ Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter O of the ES);
‒ Ground Conditions and Contamination (Chapter E of the ES);
‒ Noise and Vibration (Chapter H of the ES);
‒ Socio-Economics (Chapter J of the ES);
‒ Townscape and Views (Chapter D of the ES);
‒ Transport (Chapter G of the ES);
‒ Water Environment, including Flood Risk (Chapter F of the ES); and
‒ Wind Environment (Chapter L of the ES).

7.310 The ES has been reviewed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (EIA Regulations).

7.311 The application has been supported by an ES and Updated Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
(June 2023), Environmental Statement Further Environmental Information (April 2023) and
Addendum to the Further Environmental Statement (June 2023). The two set of responses
containing additional ES information were considered to be ‘further information’ under
Regulation 25, for which the relevant consultations were carried out in accordance with the
legislation requirements, as detailed in section 4 of this report.

7.312 The Council appointed Temple Group to independently examine the ES to confirm whether
the ES satisfies the Regulations. This is supported by review reports consisting of the Interim
Review Report (dated 04/05/2022), Final Review Report 001 (dated 19/08/2022), Review of
Further Supplementary Environment Statement Report, Final Review Report 002 (dated
12/05/2023), and Final Review Report 003 (dated 25/07/2023).

7.313 Clarifications were sought across a broad range of topics in the Final Review Report 002,
with the following topics including matters considered as further information under
Regulation 25:

‒ Climate change and Resilience,

‒ Ecology and Nature Conservation,
‒ Socio-Economics,
‒ Transport, and
‒ Wind Environment.

7.314 The first Regulation 25 consultation related to the further information presented for the above
topics, whilst the second Regulation 25 consultation was with regards to the revised NTS
document that included additional information on the likely significant effects.

7.315 During the construction stage of the proposed development, significant adverse effects have
been reported in the ES in relation to the noise and vibration (minor to moderate) and
climate change impacts, which would arise from construction activities.

7.316 During the operation of the proposed development, the ES sets out that there would be
significant adverse effects on transport (moderate) and daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
whilst significant beneficial effects have been reported for townscape and views (major), and
socio-economics (moderate). Cumulative significant adverse effects have been reported in
relation to socio-economics regarding the education and healthcare provision, as well as
climate change.

7.317 With regards to the particular significant effects on daylight sunlight and overshadowing,
these have not been reported as significant in the ES, however, it has been acknowledged
 that there would be a major adverse impact on sunlight to a unit in the Leaside Business
Park and as such, it is appropriate to consider the effect to be significant.

7.318 The Council’s EIA Officer and the Council’s appointed EIA consultants have confirmed that
the submitted ES, including the subsequent ES submission as set out above, meets the
requirements of the EIA Regulations.

7.319 The ‘environmental information’ has been examined by the Council and has been taken into
consideration by officers to reach a reasoned conclusion of the significant effects of the
proposed development, which forms the basis of the assessment presented in the report.

7.320 Appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures as proposed in the ES will be secured
through planning conditions and planning obligations. The environmental information
comprises the ES, including further information and all other information, any
representations made by consultation bodies and by any other person about the
environmental effects of the proposed development.

Air Quality

7.321 London Plan policy SI1 and Tower Hamlets Local Plan policy D.ES2 require major
developments to submit an Air Quality Assessment demonstrating to meet or exceed at least
Air Quality Neutral standard. London Plan policy also requires EIA developments to consider
ways to maximise benefits to local air quality and measures and design features to reduce
exposure to pollution.

7.322 The submitted information relating to air quality has been included in Chapter I of the
Environmental Statement. The assessment has considered impacts during the construction
and operational stage of the proposed development.

7.323 Through the ES review, additional clarifications have been requested regarding the
methodology of the presented information, mainly in relation to the model use for the
assessment, baseline data, location of receptors, and the Air Quality Neutral assessment.
The applicant has provided further information on these, which were considered appropriate
for the assessment.

7.324 The applicant has included the relevant details in the Air Quality Positive Matrix instead of
producing an Air Quality Positive Assessment, which demonstrates that the mitigation
measures would benefit air quality and minimise exposure to poor air quality.

7.325 The assessment has concluded that the impacts from the construction road transport
emissions, as well as the dust generation would have a negligible effect. In addition, these
effects would be temporary and relatively short term, all managed through the relevant
planning conditions relating to the Construction Environmental Management Plan,
Construction Logistics Plan, Dust Management Plan, Non-Road Mobile Machinery emission
standards and compliance with the Dust from Demolition and Construction SPG,

7.326 During the operational stage of the proposed development, the impact from the increase in
traffic and emissions generated by the energy centre would result in a negligible effect on
the environment and surrounding receptors, which is considered acceptable. Conditions will
be secured with regards to the air quality standards for boilers, location of car park exhausts,
kitchen extract standards for commercial uses, and mechanical ventilation for the proposed
residential units.

7.327 The proposed scheme also seeks to maximise the landscaping features along the A12 which
would result in mitigating the existing air pollution and improving the air quality in the area,
which is welcomed. Whilst it has been noted in the ES review that the applicant has not used
the opportunity to explain whether the proposals would maximise benefits to the air quality,
given the proposed improvement to the worst impacted part of the site along the A12, as well
as other mitigation measures, this is considered acceptable.

Biodiversity and Ecology

7.328 London Plan policy G6 and Tower Hamlets Local Plan D.ES3 require developments to
protect and enhance biodiversity. In addition, London Plan policy G5 recommends a target
score for Urban Greening Factor (UGF) of 0.4 for predominantly residential development.

7.329 The information relating to biodiversity and ecology has been provided within Chapter O of
the Environmental Statement, and consists of Preliminary Ecological Appraisals of the site, a
Bat Assessment and Bat Emergence Survey, and the Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment
report.

7.330 The application site is situated immediately adjacent to the River Lea, a Site of Metropolitan
Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), which demonstrates the site’s ecological
sensitiveness. The existing site has been cleared as part of the implementation of the extant
planning permission and as such, has negligible biodiversity value; however, a baseline
included in the Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment also includes the vegetation that
previously existed on site, which is considered appropriate. It has been noted that the
Japanese knotweed has been safely eradicated and disposed of as part of the site
clearance works.

7.331 Overall, there would be a minor adverse impact on biodiversity from the loss of existing
vegetation on site. A condition for a lighting strategy will be secured to ensure that there is
no impact from lighting, both during the construction and operational stage of the proposed
development.

7.332 It has been noted that the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) for the proposed development
would be 0.27 against a minimum of 0.4 for predominantly residential development. Whilst
the UGF would meet the policy aspirations, there would be substantial planting and green
areas proposed on site.

7.333 The ES recommended a pre- Landscape Ecological Management Plan to manage the
habitats created during the construction phase, which will be secured via a pre-
commencement condition. In addition, a condition will be secured for an assessment of the
impact of percussive piling on fish, if required.

7.334 The ES also reported minor beneficial effects on the adjacent SINC. As noted by the
biodiversity officer, the proposals include numerous biodiversity enhancements which would
contribute to the targets set out in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Further details of these
features will be secured through planning conditions.

Energy & Environmental Sustainability

7.335 Generally, a decarbonisation agenda has been adopted at all planning policy levels. Policy
SI2 of the emerging London Plan requires major development to be net zero-carbon. This
means reducing carbon dioxide emissions from construction and operation, and minimising
both annual and peak energy demand in accordance with the following energy hierarchy.

 Use Less Energy (Be Lean),

 Supply Energy Efficiently (Be Clean),
 Use Renewable Energy (Be Green), and
 Monitor and report (Be Seen)

7.336 Policy D.ES7 includes the requirement for non-residential developments to be zero carbon
with a minimum of 45% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide with the reminder to be offset
with cash payment in lieu.

Energy

7.337 At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that planning plays a
key role in delivering reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and
providing resilience to climate change. The climate change policies as set out in the London
Plan 2021 and the Borough’s Local Plan Policy D.ES7 collectively require new development
to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change and to
minimise carbon dioxide emissions.
7.338 Local Plan Policy D.ES7 requires zero carbon emission development to be achieved through
a minimum 45% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions on-site, and the remaining
regulated carbon dioxide emissions to 100%, to be offset through a cash in lieu contribution.
This is applicable to all developments.

7.339 As mentioned, no changes are proposed to the Phase 1 buildings, which would continue to
have CHPs as their energy source as consented as part of the extant permission. Whilst
CHPs are no longer acceptable due to the ongoing decarbonisation agenda and the need for
alternative low carbon sources, it has been acknowledged that the courtyard blocks have
commenced with construction. At the pre-application stage, it has been agreed with the
applicant and the GLA Officers that the main changes should be made to the Phase 2
buildings, which should be fully compliant with the current policy requirements.

7.340 For Phase 2 buildings, the proposed development seeks to reduce the overall energy
demand through energy efficient measures, efficient heating system consisting of air source
heat pumps (ASHP), and photovoltaic array as a renewable energy generating technology.
These are all considered to be acceptable.

7.341 The total on-site wide CO2 emission reduction would equate to 462.82 and it is anticipated
to be 45.1% against the Building Regulation baseline utilising the SAP10 carbon factors.
Whilst this would meet the current policy requirements, it would fail to meet the current
Building Regulation which have changed recently. In addition, the calculations would be
based on the most recent SAP 10.2 factors.

7.342 Given that the Phase 2 building would need to be built out in accordance with the latest
requirements, a condition will be secured for an updated Energy Assessment to be
submitted to demonstrate compliance. This would be secured as a pre-commencement
condition.

7.343 However, in order to fully meet the policy requirement for a net zero carbon development, all
residual carbon emissions on site would need to be offset through a financial payment.
Given that these are not known at the moment as they would be calculated once the
updated Energy Assessment becomes available, it is considered acceptable to base the
carbon offsetting contributions on the following formula as suggested by the LBTH energy
and sustainability officer:

Carbon offset contribution = carbon gap (tonnes of CO2) x price of carbon (£) x 30 (years)

7.344 Overall, the proposed development would achieve to meet the policy requirements with
regards to energy, and further information will be provided via conditions, following which
appropriate carbon offsetting contribution will be agreed based on the formula which would
be secured as a planning obligation.

Environmental sustainability

7.345 Policy D.ES6 requires new residential development achieve a maximum water use of 105
litres per person per day, to minimise the pressure on the combined sewer network and to
demonstrate that the local water supply and public sewerage networks have adequate
capacity both on and off-site to serve the development, taking into consideration the
cumulative impact of current and proposed development.

7.346 Local Plan Policy D.ES7 states ‘All new non-residential development over 500 square
metres floorspace (gross) are expected to meet or exceed BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating’. In
addition, Local Plan policy D.ES7 encourages new residential buildings to meet the Home
Quality Mark.

7.347 As required by policy, a compliance condition will be secured to ensure the maximum water
use of 105 per person per day.

7.348 The proposal mainly includes commercial uses within Phase 2 of the development, however,
only the commercial unit on the first floor of block M with a separate access on the ground
 floor of this block, would be over 500 sqm in size. A condition will be secured for this unit to
demonstrate BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating as required by the policy.

Flood Risk & Drainage

7.349 Policy SI12 of the London Plan seeks to manage the current and expected flood risk from all
sources and requires development to minimise and mitigate the flood risk and address the
residual risk, to contribute to the delivery of the measures set out in the Thames Estuary
2100 Plan, and to protect the integrity of flood defences and allow access for future
maintenance and upgrading.

7.350 Policy SI13 of the London Plan requires development to manage surface water run-off
through the relevant drainage hierarchy.

7.351 Tower Hamlets Local Plan policies D.ES4 and D.ES5 seek to manage flood risk and
encourage the use of Sustainable Urban Drain is protected to a very high standards by the
Thames tidal flood defences up to a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) change in any given year. This is also
referred to as an area with a ‘Medium’ probability of flooding, in which the application site is
situated.

7.352 Chapter F of the Environmental Statement assessment the impact of the proposed
development with regards to flood risk and surface water drainage, which is accompanied by
a Flood Risk Assessment and a Surface Water Drainage Strategy.

7.353 The site is considered as being at a low risk of fluvial and tidal flooding, however, there
remains a residual risk in the event of a breach in the flood risk defences along the River Lea
and the River Thames. This would be managed through the enhancement works to the
existing river wall.

7.354 Initially, the Environment Agency objected to the proposals given that the submitted
information did not adequately demonstrate that the flood defences can be accesses,
protected and raised to the levels required by the TE2100 Plan.

7.355 Following this, the applicant engaged with the EA to resolve these issues which resulted in
setback of block C by further 3m into the site from the River Lea. Having responded to the
amended set of information, the EA removed their initial objection, subject to the inclusion of
conditions that would ensure the implementation of the relevant measures and provide
details of the ecological enhancements of the river wall, and a detailed balcony design and
removal method that would ensure appropriate access to the river wall in case of
maintenance.

7.356 It has been noted that a River Wall raising Strategy has been submitted as requested by the
EA and a compliance condition will be secured to ensure that the river wall works would be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7.357 Further to the above, it is considered that the proposed development is considered
acceptable and would ensure that the integrity of existing and future flood defences will be
protected. Furthermore, additional mitigation measures will be secured, as recommended in
the ES with regards to the flood resilience measures and a Flood Warning and Evacuation
Plan.

Health Impact Assessment

7.358 London Plan GG3 requires developments to assess their potential impacts on the mental
and physical health and wellbeing of communities through the use of Health Impact
Assessments (HIAs). Tower Hamlets Local Plan D.SG3 requires major developments
referable to the GLA to provide an HIA.

7.359 The application is supported by a Health Impact Assessment report which assesses the
proposed development against the key wider determinants of health to identify potential
health impacts, both during the construction and operational phases.
7.360 The report concludes that there would be an overall negligible effect during the construction
phase and an overall minor to moderate beneficial effect once operational. The positive
impacts include the provision of new housing and particularly affordable homes, commercial
uses on the site generating employment and catering for the wider area, the creation of
publicly accessible open and child play spaces.

7.361 Of particular importance would be improvements to the public realm along Lochnagar Street
and the A12, as well as the provision of the safeguarded land for the delivery of the
Lochnagar bridge that would have an even wider impact to the communities across the River
Lea. This would also promote active travel as one of the key health determinants.

7.362 The majority of the measures contributing positively to health and wellbeing would be
embedded in the proposed development, and where relevant would be secured via planning
conditions and obligations.

Land Contamination

7.363 The existing ground conditions and contamination impact have been presented in Chapter E
of the ES.

7.364 Given that the extant consent has been implemented, this also included the remediation
works which were subject to the discharged conditions under the previous permissions.
Whilst it is not necessary to re-discharge this information again under this application,
appropriate compliance condition for the approved documents and a condition for a
verification report will be secured.

7.365 The LBTH contaminated land officer had no objections to the details in the submission
documents, and the EA raised no issues with regards to the groundwater contamination.

7.366 As noted in the ES review reports, the relevant planning conditions will be secured to ensure
that the additional mitigation measures have been included. These relate to a requirement
for a piling environmental method statement and details on the discharge of contaminated
water, as well as compliance conditions for the implementation of the further works.

Waste, Water & Wastewater Management

7.367 Policy D.MW3 of the Local Plan 2031 requires adequate refuse and recycling storage
alongside and combined with appropriate management and collection arrangements. The
policy requires new major residential development to incorporate high quality on-site waste
collection system that do not include traditional methods of storage and collection.

7.368 The supporting text of the policy further explains that the Council is seeking to move away
from the traditional waste storage methods, including Euro bin containers. The policy also
states that supporting evidence must be submitted with the application to demonstrate where
non-traditional waste methods are not practicable.

7.369 The Council’s Reuse, Recycle and Waste SPD sets out design guidelines regarding waste
management for new residential developments and provides a decision tree to ensure that
the correct waste storage and collection methods are chosen for developments.

7.370 The High Density SPD also provides a set of guidelines for high density scheme. In relation
to waste, design guidelines AB.14 states that traditional waste systems will be resisted.

7.371 Policy D.ES6 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 requires developments to reduce water
consumption and achieve a maximum water use of 105 litres per person per day, as well as
the demonstrate that the local water supply and public sewerage networks have adequate
capacity to cater for the proposed development while taking into account the cumulative
impact of current and proposed development.

7.372 In addition to these, policy SI5 of the London Plan seeks from developments to incorporate
other measures such as smart metering, water saving and recycling measures to achieve
lower water consumption rates. The policy also seeks that development proposals should
also seek to ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure capacity is provided.
7.373 The courtyard blocks within Phase 1 will be based on the traditional waste management and
collection system, which will be coordinated by the Facilities team on site. For blocks E, G, I
and K, the waste collection will occur directly from the bin store, whilst for all other blocks in
Phase 1, this will be done from a consolidated collection point situated to the west of block
E.

7.374 For Phase 2, the proposed waste strategy uses an Underground Refuse Storage (URS)
system for collections of residential waste and recycling whilst for food waste in Phase 2,
there would a traditional waste collection system.

7.375 Significant concerns have been raised in relation to the location of a URS at the end of
Lochnagar Street given its location which would be immediately adjacent to the safeguarding
landing area for the future bridge. It was considered that this would impede the movement
from the bridge and around it.

7.376 In addition, LBTH highways and waste officers have raised significant concerns with regards
to the URS waste collection on a public highway, given that this has proved to be
challenging on a public highway during the operation of developments.

7.377 The applicant has re-located the URS bins from Lochnagar Street to the south-eastern part
of Ailsa Street. It has been noted that the original location on Lochnagar Street resulted in a
carrying distance of 25m for residents in block A which increased to 95m at the amended
location on Ailsa Street, exceeding the minimum 30m carrying distance.

7.378 It has been noted that there are additional URS bins slightly further to the north on Ailsa
Street, however, all of the bins would ensure the necessary capacity for the proposed
development. In addition, a balanced view needed to be taken with respect to the carrying
distance and a preference for a collection off the public highway, particularly as the location
of the bins are on a natural way out from blocks A and B. As such, this element of the
scheme is considered acceptable on balance.

7.379 A condition will be secured for a detailed Waste Management Plan to be submitted prior to
the occupation of the proposed development.

7.380 In terms of the layout of the Phase 2 buildings, block M is in the same location, however,
shortened along the southern edge to provide appropriate access to the Thames Water
infrastructure, which was an issue with the extant scheme that intended to build over the
relevant access point. It is welcomed that the applicant has worked with Thames Water to
address this concern.

7.381 With regards to the waste and wastewater infrastructure, Thames Water reviewed the
application and raised no objections. A condition has been recommended for no occupation
beyond the 99th dwelling until all network upgrades have been completed or a development
and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed. However, it is considered that a pre-
occupational condition is more appropriate to be secured, particularly in case further
upgrades would need to take place before the occupation.

7.382 Overall, the waste, water and wastewater implications of the proposed development are
considered to be acceptable, and further details will be secured via planning conditions as
suggested.

Wind and Microclimate

7.383 The relevant information detailing the conditions and impacts on wind and microclimate has
been included in Chapter L of the ES.

7.384 The submitted information provides details on the assessment and results from a wind
tunnel testing carried out through five scenarios to determine the expected suitability of wind
conditions based on the industry standard Lawson criteria for pedestrian comfort and safety.
Additional clarifications have been requested in relation to the conclusions of the testing and
any additional mitigation measures that might be required.
7.385 The information presented in the ES and its supporting documentation confirms that the
proposed mitigation measures would ensure that all of the spaces within the proposed
development would be suitable for their intended use, including open spaces containing
amenity and child play space, podium level amenity space, balconies of the proposed
development, as well as private, communal and other amenity spaces of the adjacent
schemes. Overall, there would be a negligible impact on all assessed receptors.

7.386 The embedded mitigation measures would be included in the scheme through the proposed
soft landscaping, particularly in relation to the positioning of the evergreen trees, and the
increased solidity of the balcony balustrades. These details would be secured via
compliance condition.

Infrastructure Impact

7.387 It is estimated that the proposed development would be liable for Tower Hamlets Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Mayor of London CIL payments.

7.388 Alongside CIL, Development Plan policies seek financial contributions to be secured by way
of planning obligations to offset the likely impacts of the proposed development on local
services and infrastructure.

7.389 The applicant has agreed to meet all of the financial contributions that are sought by the
Council’s Planning Obligations SPD, as detailed below.

Human Rights & Equalities

7.390 The proposal does not raise any unique human rights or equalities implications. The balance
between individual rights and the wider public interest has been carefully considered and
officers consider it to be acceptable.

7.391 The proposed new residential accommodation would meet inclusive design standards and
would provide wheelchair accessible units.

7.392 In addition, the proposed affordable housing would be of particular benefit to groups that are
socially and/or economically disadvantaged. It should be noted that the additional benefit
comes from an increase in affordable and wheelchair units when compared to the extant
scheme which is already under construction.

7.393 To conclude, the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts upon human
rights, equalities, or social cohesion.

8. RECOMMENDATION

8.1 That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, conditional planning permission is
GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following
planning obligations:

8.2 Financial obligations

a. £374,372 towards construction phase employment skills training

b. £26,649 towards end-user phase employment skills training

c. £28,000 towards Legible London wayfinding

d. £220,000 towards Cycle Hire docking station

e. £250,000 towards the A12 subway enhancements

f. £96,755 towards development co-ordination and integration

g. Formula-based contributions towards carbon emission off-setting

 h. Monitoring fee for financial contribution of 5% of the first £100,000 of contribution, 3% of
the part of the contribution between £100,000 - £1 million, 1% of the part of the
contribution over £1 million – 1%. Monitoring fee for non-financial contributions of £1,000
per 100 units or 10,000 sqm - £1,000.

Total financial contributions: £995,776 (excluding carbon emission off-setting contribution

and monitoring fees).

8.3 Non-financial obligations:

a. Affordable housing (35.5% by habitable room, 285 units in total)
‒ 88 units at London Affordable Rent
‒ 88 units at Tower Hamlets Living Rent
‒ 109 units as Shared Ownership
‒ Early Stage Review
‒ Details of marketing of London Affordable Rent/Tower Hamlets Living Rent ‘wheelchair
accessible’ dwellings (to M4 (3)(2)(b) standard)
b. Access to employment
‒ 20% local procurement
‒ 20% local labour in construction
‒ 53 x construction phase apprenticeships
c. Transport matters:
‒ Permit Free development
‒ Car Club (details of 2 x spaces, plus three years free membership for households)
‒ Residential and Workspace Travel Plans
‒ S278 Agreement (highway improvement works to Lochnagar Street and the A12)
‒ Repaving and replanting of the footway along the A12
d. Safeguarding of public access routes and public realm, including a Public Realm
Management Plan (covering the riverside walk and park, and all publicly accessible
areas).
e. Safeguarded land for the bridge and delivery of landscaping within the safeguarded area.
f. Compliance with the Code of Construction Practice and signing up to Considerate
Constructors Scheme.
g. Architect retention.

8.4 That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal
agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been
completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning
permission.

8.5 That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and
informatives to address the following matters:

8.6 Planning Conditions

Compliance
1. 3 years deadline for commencement of development.
2. Development in accordance with approved plans.
3. A12/TLRN infrastructure protection.
4. Compliance with the Fire Statement.
5. Air quality standards for boilers (low NOx<40mgNOx/Nm3).
6. Location of car park exhausts.
7. Ecological improvements on site during the construction stage.
8. No discharge of extracted/perched groundwater into the River Lea during the demolition
and construction works.
9. Percussive pilling assessment if used during the work.
10. Wind mitigation details.
11. Ground conditions and contamination compliance works details.
12. Operating hours of commercial uses.
13. Water consumption (105 litres per day per person).
14. Restriction of permitted development on the change of use of commercial, business and
services uses (Use Class) to Residential (C3).
15. Restriction of permitted development on erection of fences.
16. Smart meter installation.
17. Section 61 restrictions on demolition and construction activities.
18. Active ground frontage retention and restriction of roller shutters use.
19. Notification to London City Airport if a crane is used.
20. No lighting directed over the adjacent SINC during construction.
21. Remediation details.
22. Works to the river wall in accordance with the River Wall Raising Strategy.

Pre-commencement

The inclusion of the following pre-commencement conditions has been agreed in

principle with the applicants, subject to detailed wording
23. Construction Environmental Management Plan, Construction Traffic Management Plan
and Construction Logistics Plan (Phase 2).
24. Archaeological findings and details.
25. Dust Management Plan, PM10 monitoring and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Phase 2).
26. Waterborne transport feasibility, in consultation with Canal & River Trust and Port of
London Authority (Phase 2).
27. Piling Method Statement (Phase 2).
28. Ecological enhancement of the river wall, in consultation with the Environment Agency.
29. Air quality mechanical ventilation details.
30. Nesting bird strategy (Phase 2).
31. Landscape Ecological Management Plan (Phase 2, construction).
32. Contaminated waste discharge details.
33. Updated Energy Assessment and details (Phase 2).

Pre-superstructure works
34. Landscaping details of all landscape character areas, including soft and hard
landscaping, lighting scheme and any other street equipment features, and Landscape
Management Plan (in consultation with Canal and River Trust).
35. Details and equipment associated with all child play spaces and communal amenity
spaces.
36. Full details of plant equipment.
37. Secured by Design.
38. CHP details for Phase 1.
39. Detailed balcony design and removal method, in consultation with the Environment
Agency.
 40. Wheelchair units detailed layout design.
41. Biodiversity enhancement details.
42. SUDS strategy.
Prior to specific works taking place
43. Details of external facing materials and architectural detailing.
44. Block M ventilation details.
Pre-occupation
45. Network upgrades or Development and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, in consultation with
Thames Water.
46. Car Parking Design and Management Plan, including electric vehicle charging points
provision.
47. Delivery and Servicing Plan.
48. Residential and commercial cycle parking detailed design in line with London Cycle
Design Standards, including maximisation of spaces for larger and adapted bikes and
Cycle Parking Management Plan.
49. Remediation verification report.
50. Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan, including flood resilience measures in basement
relating to the continued operation of power and other services.
51. Waste Management Plan.
52. Circular Economy Statement.
53. Whole Life Cycle Carbon.
54. Noise insulation details and verification report for residential units.
55. BREEAM Excellent rating for Block M commercial unit.
56. Kitchen extract standards for commercial uses.
57. Signage and shopfront details for the proposed commercial units.
58. Provision of essential riparian equipment along the river edge.

8.7 Informatives
1. Permission subject to legal agreement.
2. Development is CIL liable.
3. Thames Water – proximity to assets.
4. Requirements for Canal & River Trust’s consents.
5. Requirement for Port of London Authority’s estates licences.
6. Requirement for the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Activity Permit.
7. Details on the conditions previously discharged under the extant permission.
APPENDIX 1 – List of Plans and Documents for Approval

Schedule of Drawings

Site Location Plan, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-00-PL-A-90200 P1

Site Plans Existing Site, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-00-PL-A-90201 P1
Site Plans Proposed Site, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-00-PL-A-90203 P4
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level B01 – Basement, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-BS-
PL-A-90399 P9
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 00, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-00-PL-A-90300
P17
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 – Level 00 Indicative, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-00-PL-
A-91300 P2
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 01, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-01-PL-A-90301
P13
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 02, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-02-PL-A-90302
P14
General Arrangement Plan Phase 2 Blocks A and B Level 02, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-07-
PL-A-90320 P2
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Levels 03 and 4, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-PL-A-
90308 P3
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 05, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-05-PL-A-90310 P3
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 06, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-06-PL-A-90311 P3
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 7, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-07-PL-A-90312 P3
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 08, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-08-PL-A-90303
P11
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 09, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-09-PL-A-90304
P11
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 10, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-10-PL-A-90305
P11
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Levels 11 to 21, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-PL-A-
90306 P12
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 22, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-22-PL-A-90307
P11
General Arrangement Plans Phase 2 Level 23 – Roof, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-RF-PL-A-
90309 P11
Site Elevation Lochnagar Street Elevation, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-EL-A-90501 P5
Site Elevation River Site Elevation, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-EL-A-90502 P4
Site Elevation Elevation 03 Ailsa Street Elevation, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-EL-A-90503
P1
Site Elevations Elevation 04 North Site Elevation, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-EL-A-90504
P4
Site Elevation West Elevation, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-EL-A-90505 P4
Building Elevation Typical Tower Façade North East & South East, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-
P2-XX-EL-A-90509 P4
Block M Elevations, North & East Elevations, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-M-XX-EL-A-90541 P4
Building Elevation Block M, South & West Elevations, Drawing No: AIL-BMA-M-XX-EL-A-
90542 P5
Block ABC – Bay Study 01 – Ground Floor, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90601 P3
Façade Bay Study Blocks ABC Bay Study 02 – Podium, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-
A-90602 P5
Façade Bay Study Blocks ABC Bay Study 03 – Blocks ABC Residential, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90603 P4
Façade Bay Study Blocks ABC Bay Study 04 – Blocks ABC Residential, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90604 P5
Façade Bay Study Blocks ABC Bay Study 05 – Blocks ABC Residential, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90605 P4
Façade Bay Study Blocks ABC Bay Study 07 – Blocks ABC Residential Top, Drawing No.
AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90607 P2
Façade Bay Study Blocks B2 and C2 Bay Study 09 – Blocks B2 and C2 Residential,
Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90609 P5
Façade Bay Study Block M Bay Study 11 – Commercail Façade, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-
XX-DE-A-90611 P4
Façade Bay Study Block M Bay Study 12 – Residential Façade – Typical, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90612 P4
Façade Bay Study Block M Bay Study 13 – Residential Façade – Top, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90613 P3
Façade Bay Study Block M Bay Study 16 – Residential Balconies – Inset, Drawing No. AIL-
BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-90616 P2
Site Sections Section AA, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-SE-A-90451 P4
Site Sections Section BB, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-SE-A-90452 P5
Site Sections Section CC, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-SE-A-90453 P4
Illustrative Colour Masterplan, Drawing No. AIL-FAB-ZZ-ZZ-PL-L-92000 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape General Arrangement – Sheet 1 of 4, Drawing No. AIL
FAB ZZ 00 PL L 92001 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape General Arrangement – Sheet 2 of 4, Drawing No. AIL
FAB ZZ 00 PL L 92002 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape General Arrangement – Sheet 3 of 4, Drawing No. AIL
FAB ZZ 00 PL L 92003 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape General Arrangement – Sheet 4 of 4, Drawing No. AIL
FAB ZZ 00 PL L 92004 P01
Indicative Sitewide Sections – Sheet 1 of 2, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ 00 SE L 98001 P01
Indicative Sitewide Sections – Sheet 2 of 2, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ 00 SE L 98002 P01
Indicative Roof Level Sections, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ 00 SE L 98003 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape General Arrangement – Level 2, Drawing No. AIL FAX
ZZ 02 PL L 92001 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape Roof Plan – Sheet 1 of 4, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ RF
PL L 92001 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape Roof Plan – Sheet 2 of 4, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ RF
PL L 92002 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape Roof Plan – Sheet 3 of 4, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ RF
PL L 92031 P01
Combined Hard and Soft Landscape Roof Plan – Sheet 4 of 4, Drawing No. AIL FAB ZZ RF
PL L 92004 P01
Gross Internal Area Plans Site Wide Levels B01 to 02, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-
98001 P2
Gross Internal Area Plans Site Wide Levels 03 to 21, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-A-
98002 P2
Gross Internal Area Plans Site Wide Level 22 and Totals, Drawing No. AIL-BMA-P2-XX-DE-
A-98003 P2
Proximity of Phase 2 Building to River Wall: Ground Floor, Drawing No. AIL-ABA-XX-XX-DR-
S-2111 P01
Proximity of Phase 2 Building to River Wall: Upper Floors, Drawing No. AIL-ABA-XX-XX-DR-
S-2112 P01
River Walls overall scheme, Drawing No. AIL-ABA-XX-XX-DR-S-4500 C03
River Walls General Arrangement Zone 5, Drawing No. AIL-ABA-XX-XX-DR-S-4505 C04
River Walls General Arrangement Zone 6, Drawing No. AIL-ABA-XX-XX-DR-S-4506 C04

Schedule of Documents

Affordable Housing Statement, by Lichfields, dated August 2023

Ailsa Wharf BRE Client Report Response, by Lichfields, dated 02 August 2023
Aisa Wharf – Core Arrangement, by Broadway Malyan
Atelier ten’s letter dated 19 October 2022
Block C relocation – Landscape Alterations, by Broadway Malyan
Circular Economy Statement, by Stantec, dated January 2022
Concept: Wheelchair Unit Schedule, by Broadway Malyan, dated 09.06.2022
Cycle Store Façade Treatment Blocks A B & B2, by Broadway Malyan, dated 12 July 2022
Design and Access Statement, by Broadway Malyan
Drawing Register/Issue, by Broadway Malyan, dated October 2023
Energy Memo: GLA Consultation, dated 4/8/2022 with applicant’s responses
Environmental Statement, by Lichfields, dated January 2022
ES Updated Non-Technical Summary, dated June 2023
Environmental Statement Further Environmental Information, dated April 2023
Addendum to the Further Environmental Statement, dated June 2023
External Lighting Statement, by atelier ten, dated March 2022
Fire Statement, by atelier ten, dated January 2022
Fire statement form, dated 26/07/2022
Health Impact Assessment, by Lichfields, dated January 2022
Landscape Design and Access Statement, by fabrik, dated January 2022
LBTH noise comments – response provided by Scotch Partners
Lichfields Letter dated 29 July 2022, response to planning application ref. PA/22/00210
consultation comments
Lichfields Letter dated 21 December 2022, response to planning application ref.
PA/22/00210 consultation comments December 2022
Lichfields Letter dated 13 April 2023, response to planning application ref. PA/22/00210
consultation comments
Lichfields Letter dated 9 August 2023, Updates to the housing mix to planning application
ref. PA/22/00210
Operational Waste Strategy, by Stantec, dated July 2022
Planning Statement, by Lichfields, dated January 2022
Proposed Mix & Tenure Schedule, by Broadway Malyan, dated 13/07/2023
River Wall Raising Strategy, by Alan Baxter, dated March 2023
SAP Spreadsheets Block A, Version: 1.0.5.50
SAP Spreadsheets Block B, Version: 1.0.5.50
SAP Spreadsheets Block C, Version: 1.0.5.50
SAP Spreadsheets Block EFGH, Version: 1.0.5.50
SAP Spreadsheets Block IJKL, Version: 1.0.5.50
SAP Spreadsheets Block M, Version: 1.0.5.50
Solar Reflection Analysis Report, by Lichfields, dated August 2022
Statement of Community Involvement, by Lichfields, dated January 2022
Sustainability and Energy Statement, by atelier ten, dated January 2022
Technical Note, by Steer, dated 22 June 2022
Utilities Statement, by Utility Results, dated January 2022
Whole Life-cycle Carbon Assessment, by Stantec, dated January 2022
WLC Memo: GLA Consultation, dated 4/4/2022 with applicant’s responses
APPENDIX 2 – Selection of Proposed Drawings and Images

Proposed site layout.

Ground floor plan showing the proposed bridge structure.

Phasing strategy.

Proposed western site elevation (along the A12).

Proposed southern site elevation (along Lochnagar Street).

Proposed northern site elevation.

Proposed river elevation.