GVA (for Workspace 14) Further Statement

Appendices
Appendix 1
workspace.co.uk
YOURWORKSPACE
ENABLING
BUSINESSES
TO GROW
FASTER
FULL
PROPERTY
LISTINGS
INSIDE
Cool space
What’s on
Up & coming
Feature customer interviews:
In bed with
Mr & Mrs Smith
Barley Mow Centre, Chiswick
Under the
skin of Bulldog
Pall Mall Deposit, Notting Hill
WELCOME TO
WORKSPACE
WHERE
BUSINESSES
GROW
FASTER
Workspace aims to be the first choice
for new and growing businesses seeking
a base in London. We create unique
environments that enable businesses
to have the freedom and opportunity
to thrive. We host the capital’s leading
business communities, we help connect
them, understand what drives them and
use our expertise to champion their
cause. Our customers are at the heart
of London’s real economy and we
provide them with the right space and
services to help them grow.
PROPERTY LISTINGS
39
39
47
53
57
63
71
77
83
87
88
93
94
96
99
101
103
020 7247 7614
workspace.co.uk
OFFICES
AND STUDIOS
Central London
North London
East London
South East London
South West London
West London
North West London
Outer London
SERVICED
OFFICES
Central London
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
& WORKSHOPS
North London
East London
South East London
South West London
Outer London
Cover image: Westbourne Studios W10
CONTENTS
FEATURES
SERVICES
02
32
ABOUT WORKSPACE
OUR WIDER
UNDERSTANDING
Where ideas, enterprise and
businesses come together.
New leases of life for historic buildings,
developing and managing properties
that support work-led regeneration…
18
06
34
SHOPITIZE GROWS WITH
WORKSPACE
IN THE COMMUNITY
Read about one of our customer
success stories; how Shopitize started at
Club Workspace and have now taken
permanent space at The Leathermarket.
The Mayor of London and the London
Academies Enterprise Trust (LAET)
joined forces with Workspace in support
of ‘Inspiresme Week’ .
FEATURE
36
IN BED WITH
MR & MRS SMITH…
OUR SERVICES
A day-in-the-life interview with husband
-and-wife team, founders of the boutique
hotel booking specialist Mr & Mrs Smith,
based at the Barley Mow Centre.
12
COOL SPACE
See how creative some of our customers
have been with their work space…
– Telephony and Connectivity
– net.workspace.co.uk
20
FEATURE
UNDER THE SKIN
OF BULLDOG
A day-in-the-life interview with
Bulldog, the UK’s first and largest
natural skincare brand for men, based
at Pall Mall Deposit in Notting Hill.
106
MOVING IN?
?
Tips for taking space.
14
EVENTS AT WORKSPACE
Take a look at some of the events we
host as part of our packed events diary.
16
CLUB WORKSPACE
A network of creative, co-working
business clubs across London.
24
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
– Metal Box Factory SE1
– The Pillbox E2
– ScreenWorks N5
– Wandsworth Business
Village SW18
– Grand Union Centre W10
– Westminster Business Square SE11
– The Biscuit Factory SE16
– The Faircharm SE8
– Bow Enterprise Park E3
01
WORKSPACE:
WHERE IDEAS, ENTERPRISE AND BUSINESSES
COME TOGETHER
Being a Workspace customer means being part of a community
of ambitious businesses all over London.
4,000
30,000
PEOPLE
WORKING
IN OUR
CENTRES
100
BUSINESS
CENTRES
THROUGHOUT
LONDON
02
BUSINESSES
BASED
IN OUR
CENTRES
5.2m
SQFT
OF
BUSINESS
SPACE
SOUTHGATE
HIGH BARNET
WOOD GREEN
HENDON
HARROW
HORNSEY
WANSTEAD
ILFORD
WEMBLEY
HAMPSTEAD
EAST HAM
HAYES
BOW
CITY AIRPORT
HEATHROW AIRPORT
ACTON
KENSINGTON
WESTMINSTER
WOOLWICH
GREENWICH
CAMBERWELL
KINGSTON
LEWISHAM
ELTHAM
STREATHAM
WIMBLEDON
BROMLEY
MITCHAM
CROYDON
03
WORKSPACE:
HOW WE ENABLE BUSINESSES TO
GROW FASTER
The right spaces for our customers and the right services
to help their businesses grow.
86%
OF OUR
CUSTOMERS
WOULD
RECOMMEND
WORKSPACE
04
Main photo: Matchbox | Barley Mow Centre W4
Cherry Bomb | The Biscuit Factory SE16
THE RIGHT SPACES
We provide the right types
of business space tailored
to our customers’ needs and
offer flexible terms.
EVENTS
We offer networking events in
many of our business centres
that provide opportunities for
meeting like-minded businesses,
swapping ideas and generating
new contacts.
CLUB WORKSPACE
We are expanding our Club
Workspace network of creative,
co-working business clubs
which are based in our business
centres across London.
WORKSPACE NETWORK
We help connect customers
to each other, resulting in
high levels of inter-trading.
Workspace Network enables
customers to network,
promote their business and
seek business advice.
TELECOMS
Our partnership with Excell
provides customers with
an unrivalled business grade
telephony and connectivity
service, designed specifically
for new and growing
businesses.
05
CUSTOMER FEATURE
IN BED
WITH
MR & MRS
SMITH…
06
MR & MRS SMITH
Boutique hotel booking specialist
Mr & Mrs Smith is based at the
Barley Mow Centre in Chiswick.
James, Tamara & family
Founded in 2003 by husbandand-wife team James Lohan and
Tamara Heber-Percy, the company
represents a hand-picked
selection of around 1,000 of the
most stylish and individual hotels
around the world and now has
offices in Melbourne, New York
and Hong Kong.
A DAY-IN-THE-LIFE INTERVIEW
smithandfamily.co.uk
PE:
S TY RAVEL
S
E
T
IN
E
RE
BUSUTIQU :
ENT
BO ED AT OW C
BAS LEY M
BARSWICK
CHI
E
very hotel featured is personally visited by the
Smith team and then anonymously reviewed by a
tastemaker to ensure it makes the grade – reviewers
have included the likes of Dita von Teese, Stella
McCartney and Raymond Blanc. In the last decade,
Smith has published nine coffee-table guides, released four
compilation CDs and, late last year, launched new brand
Smith & Family, exclusively dedicated to child-friendly hotels
(smithandfamily.co.uk).
As CEO, James takes charge of the business’s strategy and
development and takes a leading role in determining the look
and feel of the Smith brands. Across the office from him, Tamara
is the CTO, responsible for the company’s in-house development
team and driving innovation in Smith’s complex booking
technology. Here’s how they each spend their day…
07
CUSTOMER FEATURE
Hotelier meeting
We have hoteliers visiting us almost daily from all over the
world; it gives our Travel team a fantastic opportunity to
hear about the latest developments first-hand and gives
our Hotel Relations team the chance to have face-to-face
time with the people they’re used to dealing with by
phone and email every day. It’s also important for me to
keep on top of what’s happening with our hotel collection.
We’re often asked to comment on travel trends – from
hotel design to restaurant offerings – so it’s vital that I
know what I’m talking about!
Ray’s bacon rolls
11:00
10:00
08:30
Breakfast meeting
We live just 10 minutes from our office
in the Barley Mow Centre, so I tend to get
in early for a chance to catch up over
Skype with one of our regional directors.
We discuss their region’s performance,
upcoming projects and concerns and I
update them on global developments
from HQ here in London.
S
JAMES
08
Grab a coffee from the Barley Café
I’ll pick up a coffee from Ray’s
(incidentally, his bacon rolls are a
key part of the Smith editorial
department’s incentivisation
programme!) and spend some time
working with our designers and
editorial team on whatever projects
we have on the go. It could be
planning a booklet we’re producing
for a tourist board, brainstorming
branding for a new product or
redesigning aspects of the websites,
mrandmrssmith.com or
smithandfamily.co.uk.
mith’s CEO and co-founder James Lohan is
a serial entrepreneur, starting his business
career by founding Atomic, which organised
London parties and events and has continued
working in industries he is passionate about ever
since. He co-founded restaurant and members’ club
the White House and then turned his attentions to
boutique hotels.
Since Mr & Mrs Smith’s first guidebook was
published under the Spy Publishing imprint in 2003,
Smith has grown from a labour of love to a multifaced boutique travel provider, developing an online
booking service, a 24 hour in-house reservations
team and a three-tiered membership programme
that includes a full travel concierge service.
Smith has been a Workspace customer since
2011 and has expanded its space to accommodate
the company’s growing business.
MR & MRS SMITH
Lunch meeting
High Road House is just five minutes
down the road, so I might meet up
with a potential business partner
there to talk about the possibilities
for co-operation. It could be the
owner of Brompton Bikes, the
marketing director of Audi or the
entrepreneurs behind an exciting
new start-up. At Smith we work with
an array of like-minded brands in
many different ways but essentially
we ‘trade’ audiences through
engaging promotional ideas.
16:30
15:00
Sam’s Brasserie
is just next
door and has a
great, relaxed
atmosphere
Operations meeting
Our COO and I regularly meet in Sam’s
Brasserie next door to discuss what’s
happening as we continually evolve the
company’s structure or fine-tune its
output and priorities. This could be
anything from agreeing our global
marketing spend to focusing on a single
department’s efficiency. It’s also a great
time to talk about the team and who
might need more help or direction.
18:00
12:45
Back at the office
I normally have heaps to catch
up on by this point in the day.
We communicate frequently with
our members by email, so I might
be signing off one of our newsletters
or offer promotions. If I’ve just got
back from a hotel visit, I could be
writing a blog post about our
recent stay at, say, Finca Cortesin
in Marbella, or penning a review of
Cowley Manor in the Cotswolds
for Smith & Family.
Cowley Manor
The Cotswolds
Event at Lime Wood
My evenings often entail a launch party
for something (maybe a new hotel,
bar or restaurant), an awards
ceremony (where hopefully we
win something!) or some other
event at which I think I might
make new contacts to work with.
These events are a great source
of inspiration and often it will
spark new ideas that I think we
can work into the fabric of Smith.
If there are no events or dinner
engagements with investors or
interesting people afterwards,
I head home for bedtime stories with
the kids at 7.30pm, something simple
to eat and a bit of trash TV to switch
off from the day – Britain’s Got Talent is
my current guilty pleasure.
09
CUSTOMER FEATURE
09:30
The school run
After being woken up by our kids,
the start of my day is marked by the
arrival of my daily stats email – it tells
me instantly what the company did
the day before and whether we had
any server issues. Then it’s straight
into the morning routine: dropping
my eldest at school; calling in at
Laveli Bakery on South Parade with
my daughter for a croissant and hot
chocolate and leaving my, by then,
chocolate-covered daughter with
the nursery staff at Caterpillar.
Morning catch-up
At the office, I organise a Google Hangout with
the development team in Australia. The time
difference obviously makes communication tricky,
so if we can talk before they leave the office it
really helps. Then I’ll catch up with our team here
to make sure everything’s on track and iron out
any issues. At any one time, we have at least two
big projects on the go (most recently, these have
been building smithandfamily.co.uk, completely
redesigning the Mr & Mrs Smith website and
planning a new members’ hub for our customers).
08:30
06:30
smithandfamily.co.uk
Photoshoot at the Ampersand
Photoshoots are pretty frequent these
days – it could be for a campaign we’re
running ourselves or to accompany
pieces about us in the press. Today, I’m
having my picture taken for a feature in
Marie Claire about entrepreneurship
and my mentoring a fashion start-up..
TAMARA
C
o-founder and CTO Tamara Heber-Percy
grew up between Ibiza and Shropshire,
graduating from Oxford with a degree in
languages. She has worked in marketing on both
agency and client-side for brands such as Ericsson,
Honda, Unilever and Swissair. In 2002, she left to
head up her own company, the County Register –
an exclusive introductions agency – and to launch
Mr & Mrs Smith.
Combining travel expertise with technological
knowledge, Tamara has been the architect behind
the development of Mr & Mrs Smith’s e-commerce
websites. As CTO, Tamara heads up the international
development team and is responsible for the
technology behind the website and the booking
engine, as well as e-commerce innovations and
consumer integration.
Along with the help of her specialists, she has
masterminded an array of technological innovations
at Mr & Mrs Smith, including creating proprietary
systems to enable rates and availability management,
travel-agent interfaces, SEO strategies, introducing
consumer-generated content and co-ordinating the
launches of Smith Travel Blog, smithandkids.com,
smithandfamily.co.uk and Smith’s ‘Plan and Play’
iPhone app.
10
MR & MRS SMITH
Development stand-up meeting
My whole department gathers in a
corner of the office to assess how
each team member is getting on.
These meetings are critical as they
ensure each developer knows
which part of the site’s code others
are working on, so they don’t tread
on each other’s toes.
Analysis
I catch up with Hiten, my e-commerce
analyst, to make sure he’s got all the
data he needs for the reports he’s
working on. We look at them together
and see if there’s anything interesting
coming out that’s actionable. It’s also
my last chance to go over things with
Toby, my tech director, make sure we
know of any issues, what the team are
working on and whether we need to let
our Australian developers know of
anything urgent overnight.
18:00
17:00
15:00
Wireframe meeting
We have a new project that is at the
very start of its life – before it comes into
the development department for coding,
we need to put it through a wireframing
process. This meeting is to get the key
stakeholders, designers, content creators
and project managers together to
determine the architecture of what my
team will ultimately be building.
16:00
13:30
11:45
I love Gail’s
aubergine and
quinoa mix
New business
I’ve got a couple of big partnerships
I’m working on and these take up
quite a bit of my time; meeting
partners to discuss how we can
work together; formulating contracts,
agreements and letters of intent.
14:40
Press interview
I hop on the phone for a media
interview: this morning it’s a
women’s magazine who want
to know what my tips are for
long-haul packing, what
luggage we use, which gadgets
I find essential – and, inevitably,
how I find working in the same
office as my husband.
I’M NOT AFRAID
OF BEING
LABELLED A
GEEK: I LOVE
THE DATA SIDE
OF MY JOB!
Networking event at Soho Hotel
These days, I find myself invited to take
part in more and more panel discussions
or to speak about the tech side of travel
at industry events. Today, I’ve been asked
to do a Q&A session at the Soho Hotel,
speaking to women in business for
Management Today. I much prefer these
more conversational events – it’s a great
opportunity for me to meet and speak
to some really interesting people.
Lunch in Chiswick
I’ll head to Gail’s for a coffee and a salad.
I’ll often catch up with one of the team –
it’s a good chance to get out of the office,
discuss how things are going and see
what’s on track or what needs attention.
11
CUSTOMER SPACES
Matchbox | Barley Mow Centre W4
COOLSPACE
Spaces to be creative in.
T
hink an office has to be just four walls and some desks?
Think again. We spend an average 30% of our waking
week in the office; potentially more time than at home.
It’s no wonder many businesses are now trying to improve their
staff’s working environment by creating exciting office spaces.
Send us images of your space…
If you have a unique space
which inspires you, let us know.
Tweet an image to @workspace
#coolspace and it could feature
in our next publication.
Staffan Tollgard
Westbourne Studios W10
12
Free Speed
The LightBox W4
Moonpig | Great Guildford SE1
White Stuff | Kennington Park SW9
Arch Climbing Wall | The Biscuit Factory SE16
Floral Symphonies | The Biscuit Factory SE16
How will you
be creative with
your space?
Find your space to
be creative in, visit
workspace.co.uk
Payment Sense | Westbourne Studios W10
Studio 301 | The Biscuit Factory SE16
13
01
WHAT’SON
We have a pretty packed events diary here
at Workspace. Get involved in workshops,
seminars and networking events that are
tailored for an audience of small businesses,
entrepreneurs and start-ups.
Photo courtesy of Ben Joseph
#gagldn
For wha
t’s on vis
it
club.wo
rkspace
g
ro
co.uk/co
mmunit up.
y/
02
Mobile Creatives
03
Hosted by DigitalBinx at
Club Workspace Kennington
Hosted by Ubinow at
Club Workspace Clerkenwell
Part of an ongoing series, this #gagldn
focused on hashtag marketing and
campaigns and featured case studies
from Morgans Hotel Group, UNICEF UK
and Museum of London. Big thanks to
our panellists Nick Bain, Gemma Phelan
and Laila Takeh for their presentations.
The good people of Ubinow brought
their ‘Mobile Creatives’ event into our
Clerkenwell venue. The format was
simple: two expert speakers take the
stage and chat about what they’re
doing with mobile tech. Featuring
Patrick Bergel and Dimitris Doukous.
In the mix..
Hosted by Workspace &
Club Workspace Bankside
After a successful debut two months
ago, the Workspace / Club Mixer made
its triumphant return. Our mixer nights
are an opportunity for Club Workspace
members to connect with established
Workspace customers after a hard
day’s work. The event was hosted at
Club Workspace Bankside and was
the brainchild of Leon Marshall, Club
Workspace host with the most. As the
bottles were shared around, the venue
began to hum with the sound of new
and growing business conversation.
Then came the main event. The
networking is an amuse-bouche for
the piece-de-resistance: the Member
Presentations. At every Workspace /
Club Mixer a couple of businesses take
to the stage to share their start-up
and growing business stories…
14
event,
Looking for
ference
meeting, con
ace in
or seminar sp
London?
donce.co.uk/lon
Visit workspa
find space
to
ce
pa
ts-s
meeting-even
week
y
e hour, da or
available by th
ndon.
Lo
ut
ho
ug
thro
ready for use
Netwoking at
Club Workspace
Kennington
To officially cut the ribbon at Club
Workspace’s third co-working venue,
our innovative launch event was
a little slicker than your average long
speeches and canapés affair.
With key players from politics, press,
entrepreneurship and property at
our Club Workspace Kennington, we
threw a party that was all about our
customers. But that doesn’t mean we
merely invited our members – even
though there were quite a few
of them at the event! We collaborated
with them to build an event that was
designed to show them off.
We teamed up with DigitalBinx, a social
media agency and Club Workspace
member, to make our launch event
‘go social’. They organised an excellent
Instagram competition and loads of
attendees got snap happy and shared
their pics of our new Club using the
#CWNewClub tag.
What’s with the prawns, I hear you
say? Peter Mandeno, founder of
Wok+Wine and also a Club Workspace
member, organises events all around
the world.
The concept is simple: combine some
interesting wine, several woks full of
sizzling jumbo prawns and add a room
buzzing with people who are keen to
mingle. The result of this tasty equation
is a Club Workspace full of satisfied
customers, who spent a good
proportion of the night glugging
chilled wine and sucking out the meat
from a jumbo prawn’s head.
15
Join a thriving network of
creative, co-working business
clubs across London.
Designed for both collaborative and drop-in
working, all our clubs host workshops, seminars
and networking events that are tailored for an
audience of small businesses, entrepreneurs
and start-ups.
We have three simple membership packages:
• Three Days, One Club
• Everyday, Everywhere
• Your Desk at Club
Or if you want to work in a different way, let us
know. We also have a great range of supporting
services from printing and lockers to mailboxes
and meeting rooms.
Coming soon
Plans are afoot for expansion to 10 locations in
the next 12 months including clubs at: ScreenWorks,
Highbury; The Pillbox, Bethnal Green; Metal Box
Factory, London Bridge and Westbourne Studios,
Notting Hill.
For more information or to join Club Workspace
visit the website, call us on 020 3176 4006 or email
[email protected]
clubworkspace.co.uk
@clubworkspace for news and events
16
Our network
ClubWorkspace
Chiswick
ClubWorkspace
Clerkenwell
6 mins to Turnham Green tube
7 mins to Farringdon tube & mainline
ClubWorkspace
Kennington
4 mins to Oval tube
ClubWorkspace
Bankside
ClubWorkspace
London Bridge
6 mins to Waterloo tube & mainline
8 mins to London Bridge tube & mainline
17
CUSTOMER PROFILE
SUCCESS STORY
SHOPITIZE GROWS WITH
WORKSPACE
Shopitize started at Club Workspace in 2011 and
have since gone on to great things in the world of
smart shopping apps! They are currently based in
a Workspace studio at The Leathermarket, SE1.
Alexey Andriyanenko
and Irina Pafomova,
co-founders, Shopitize
HI SHOPITIZE! FOR THOSE WHO
DON’T KNOW, WHAT DO YOU DO?
Shopitize is a London start-up whose
mission is to create a world where
all shoppers effortlessly receive
personalised recommendations and
offers on products that they need
and love.
Our platform directly connects people
with the brands they love and rewards
them for sharing information about
how they spend. The concept is based
on four R’s – Receipts, Reports,
Reminders and Rewards; it’s set to
revolutionise shopping in the UK and
the world over. The more people that
join Shopitize, the more the system
will learn and the more sophisticated
the rewards will become, saving both
time and money for consumers and
the brands.
18
In short, Shopitize is set to change the
nature of how people shop and how
brands can use promotion to connect
with their consumers.
WHY DO YOU THINK IT’S GONE
SO WELL FOR YOUR BUSINESS?
As we developed the business idea
we conducted a lot of research on
the concept. We also recruited very
experienced advisors and mentors in
the relevant industries to confirm the
scalability and potential of our business
model. Listening carefully and having
the flexibility to adjust quickly have
been very important.
BACK TO YOUR ROOTS: WHEN
AND WHERE WERE YOU FOUNDED?
It was a sunny day in summer 2010,
and the three would-be co-founders
were brainstorming ideas at a Belgian
café. We were all looking to start
something new and were inspired by
how today’s youngsters have made
smartphones such an integral part
of their lives.
We evaluated a lot of different concepts,
but kept coming back to a core idea
that people should be rewarded
differently, based on their loyalty to
specific products and brands. It was a
couple of days later while shopping
that we looked at a receipt and thought:
“That’s it – the receipt contained all the
key information to make our system
work.” And that was when Shopitize
was born. From there, it didn’t take
long for us to realise that our idea and
business model could apply to all
sectors, age groups and geographies.
It had real potential to cause significant
market disruption!
Club Workspace
is a great place for
entrepreneurs with
big ideas to start!
Juliet Chen
Marketing Manager, Shopitize
SHOPITIZE AT THE
LEATHERMARKET
WHEN DID SHOPITIZE MOVE
INTO CLUB WORKSPACE?
We were a little less than a year old
when we moved into Club Workspace.
We had outgrown the borrowed
conference room at one of our advisors
and were looking for a space that
would give us flexibility to collaborate
as we grew.
HOW MUCH DID THE SHOPITIZE
TEAM GROW SINCE YOU MOVED
INTO CLUB WORKSPACE?
We grew from a full time team of four
to an extended team of more than
eight before we took our own office
through the Club Workspace network.
WHY WAS CLUB WORKSPACE
THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR YOU?
Club Workspace is a great place for
entrepreneurs with big ideas and helps
them start up their business! It provided
us with the flexibility that we needed at
the early stage of our development.
WHERE ARE YOU BASED NOW?
Although we have graduated from
Club Workspace, we haven’t moved
far away! We currently have our own
office space in the Leathermarket
which is part of Workspace Group;
this enables us to maintain a very
close relationship with our network
at Club Workspace.
We also met many people who have
helped us grow along the way – several
of whom have since become part of
our team.
WHAT ARE YOUR FUTURE PLANS?
We are very focused on the end user
experience. Since we released our
iPhone and Android apps to public beta,
we have received a lot of support and
valuable feedback which has helped us
refine our experience.
Once we finish our beta, personalised
offers will be our key focus. We’ve had
great conversations with brands who
are very interested in our vision and are
excited about the potential to directly
engage with their power users. So this
year, building these partnerships and
delivering offers to shoppers are the
most important focus points for us.
Our mission to revolutionise shopping
is not a simple one, but we will continue
to innovate! We have just won the
honour to be the top 20 innovators at
the Cisco British Innovation Gateway
Awards, which is really encouraging for
us to move forward in our quest!
shopitize.com
19
CUSTOMER FEATURE
GETTING
UNDER THE
SKIN OF
BULLDOG
A DAY-IN-THE-LIFE INTERVIEW
“The bulldog is
tenacious, loyal,
honest, protective,
and hard-working;
all of the positive
attributes of men…”
Simon Duffy, co-founder
20
BULLDOG
Bulldog is the UK’s first and
largest natural skincare brand
for men and is based at Pall Mall
Deposit in Notting Hill.
Wake up
I am normally woken up bright and early by my
daughter, Olive, who’s 2 3⁄4. A couple of days a
week I might go to an early boxing session at
7am – I train with Pete Liggins at Box Clever
Sports, who used to have an office at Pall Mall.
Coffee
If I’m having an ‘office day’, I will
pop down to The Gallery Café
at Pall Mall Deposit for a midmorning coffee – I have become
good friends with the staff there,
probably because Edith makes
the best coffee in West London!
My bathroom at home is full of Bulldog
products and lab samples for possible new
ones. Often I spend my mornings at home
trying out new moisturisers, deodorants,
shower gels, or face scrubs. There’s nothing
better than starting off the day with a
refreshing shave with our Original Shave Gel.
11:00
10:00
Get to the office
I live just a 15 minute
walk from work and
I love my commute
along the canal. I try to
get into work for 9am
and will catch up with
team members.
09:00
06:30
Pete’s fitness
sessions are
probably the
hardest
workouts I’ve
ever known!
Reception area at
Pall Mall Deposit
Product development meeting
We spend a lot of time developing and
creating new products. For this we work
in collaboration with a couple of other
individuals and companies. Bulldog’s
requirements to use natural, ethical,
sustainably sourced ingredients mean
that we have strict formulation guidelines.
We never use ingredients that have been
tested on animals or that come from
animal sources. We work with experts to
help us formulate the products and to
work on new blends of essential oils.
We’re a small team – just four of us in the office, so it’s vital we
all know what each other is doing. I am mainly responsible for
the outward-facing elements of Bulldog, so this could involve
attending award ceremonies, doing press interviews and
meeting with buyers and suppliers.
21
CUSTOMER FEATURE
Probably around
25% of my time is
spent travelling
overseas
IN GENERAL I HAVE
THREE TYPES OF DAY:
OFFICE-BASED IN
LONDON, TRAVELLING
AROUND THE UK, OR
AWAY ON AN
OVERSEAS TRIP.
FOR ME, AN IDEAL
WEEK WOULD HAVE A
BIT OF ALL THREE!
14:15
I scream, you scream,
we all scream for
eye cream. New
product released
13:00
11:30
Making travel plans
I love meeting new people and talking to
them about Bulldog and award ceremonies
can often give me great opportunities to
meet new retailers and journalists.
Meeting with a UK retailer
I tend to do a bit of everything in the
company, but one of my major focuses
is developing our UK sales. This may
mean travelling to meetings with our
retail partners. Last week I spent a day
in Nottingham talking with some of
the buyers from Boots. These might
involve promoting new plans,
discussing product development and
keeping them up-to-date on our
marketing plans.
Best pizzas
around at
Pizza East
Lunch on Portobello Road
Pall Mall Deposit is close to the
Portobello Road, so there are
loads of great options for
lunch. If it’s a special occasion,
Pizza East on Portobello Road
is a firm favourite!
The largest UK retail
partners for Bulldog
are Boots, Sainsbury’s,
Waitrose and Tesco
22
BULLDOG
S
We don’t just do
facial products!
imon and Rhodri initially got
Bulldog off the ground by
combining their life savings and
maxing-out credit cards to scrape
together just under £37,000. Today,
the range is listed in over 10,000
stores worldwide and successfully
competes with leading multi-national
brands, despite working with a
fraction of their resources.
18:00
16:30
Catch up with paperwork
When I’m back in the office, there is
always lots of day-to-day admin to keep
up with. I like to stay on top of marketing,
social media activity and customer
feedback emails – it’s always good to
keep plugged-in with our customers and
I really enjoy this part of my day. We’re a
small team at Bulldog but we work well
together and always have lots of fun!
Rhodri, who co-founded the company
with me, takes charge of the financial side
of the business, including operations
and forecasting. We also have Ben and
Angela who work on press and marketing
and oversee communications, social
media and our rapidly growing Christmas
gift programme – yes, we’re already
planning ahead!
Home time!
I try to leave the office
around 6pm, so I can pick my
daughter up from her nanny
on the way home. Sometimes
there can be late nights, but I
try to get away from my desk
and switch off from work so I
can spend some quality time
with my wife and daughter.
Bulldog’s Original Moisturiser is the company’s best seller and is out-performing
every single Gillette skincare product and most of the L’Oreal and Nivea skincare
products in the UK. Bulldog is currently the fastest growing major men’s skincare
brand in the UK. All Bulldog products are body friendly and don’t contain
controversial man-made chemicals such as parabens, sodium laureth sulfate,
artificial colours or synthetic fragrances. Instead, Bulldog products are loaded with
essential oils and other amazing natural actives to deliver superb skincare results.
The products are not tested on animals and never contain ingredients derived from
animal sources. The BUAV certify the range as “cruelty free”.
Following Bulldog’s nationwide launch with Sainsbury’s in July 2007, the brand
experienced fast growth in the UK with further launches in Boots, Tesco, Waitrose,
Superdrug, Ocado, Whole Foods Market and Planet Organic. Since Bulldog’s
Swedish launch in 2010 the brand has also been expanding quickly overseas and
can now also be found in Norway, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Austria, South Korea,
USA, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.
The Bulldog range has won numerous important product awards worldwide,
including “Men’s Brand of the Year” (2010) in Sweden’s Café Magazine, Shave Gel
of the year in America’s Men’s Health 2012 Grooming Awards (the world’s largest
men’s magazine) and Best Face Wash in ShortList’s 2012 Grooming Awards. The
company has also won the HSBC Start Up Star Award for 2008 and the RSPCA
Good Business Award 2008. The Good Shopping Guide from the Ethical Company
Association has placed Bulldog at the top of their male and female skincare
reports for 2011 and 2012. Simon was placed first in the “Who’s Who in Natural
Beauty Top 20” in 2011 and 2012.
23
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
UP & COMING
By adapting our buildings in response to customers’ needs, Workspace creates unique
environments that new and growing businesses aspire to become part of.
METAL BOX FACTORY
Bankside SE1
A
redevelopment that will create a landmark
destination for more than 150 new and growing
businesses, complete with a 20,000 sqft rooftop
extension. The building will maintain its historical
industrial features which will be complemented
by a central atrium and enclosed garden. The new studios
will offer plenty of natural light and many will have their own
rooftop balconies.
24
THE CENTRAL
ATRIUM
FORMERLY
GREAT
GUILDFORD
BUSINESS
SQUARE
COMING
SOON
1889
The Grove, as it was originally known, was
acquired by Messrs Barclay & Fry. The site
was home to their stationery and tin printing
business and the factory produced ornately
decorated tins for tobacco, biscuits, tea,
coffee and cocoa.
1894
The business prospered and extensions
were built in 1894 and 1904, by which time
the building reached the size it is today, over
1.25 acres. Whilst stationery remained the
mainstay of the business, the contribution of
the tin side rose to 49 per cent of turnover
between 1905 and 1911.
1921
Four of the leading tin box manufacturers
formed The Metal Box & Printing Industries Ltd,
later to be known as The Metal Box Company
to combat American competition.
1930s
The company invested in the fast-expanding
canned food industry and were a virtual
monopoly in Britain, although tin boxes were
in decline.
1939–45
Success was short-lived as German bombers
destroyed 70 per cent of the factory during
WW2 air raids and tin box printing ceased
production in 1941.
1950s
The factory was re-opened and production
re-started, but on a much smaller scale,
printing mainly cheques.
1980s
Site sold following a decline in business.
1999
The site was acquired by Workspace.
Proximity to the City and West End and the
opening of Tate Modern attracted an eclectic
mix of businesses. Today, SE1 is one of the
most vibrant areas of Central London.
25
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
G
reenheath is undergoing a significant redevelopment
programme. In its former life the building was home
to pharmaceutical manufacturer, Allen & Hanburys.
The building will maintain many of its historical features
including lab tile floor, blue engineering brick columns
and water tower (which will become a two storey office). The
new reception will be akin to a modern apothecary and will include
a Club Workspace co-working area, café and central light well.
Upon completion the centre will become a landmark destination
for 120 new and growing businesses.
THE PILLBOX
Bethnal Green E2
26
DUE FOR
COMPLETION
END OF
2013
PROPOSED
EXTERIOR
FORMERLY
GREENHEATH
BUSINESS
CENTRE
Photo courtesy of Gordon Joly
1874
Allen & Hanburys, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, moved
onto the site. They were pioneers in their field, introducing
Britons to the joys of cough pastilles and cod liver oil. In the
new premises, the firm diversified into producing surgeons’
instruments and built operating tables for Barts Hospital.
1918
The company were almost bombed out of business on the
night of the Whitsun bank holiday. A flight of 34 German
Gotha bombers had taken off from Belgium with the East
End its target. In World War I this part of London was the
main target of the enemy. The Gotha that hit Bethnal Green
dropped its first bomb at Poplar at 1 1.07pm, then flew onto
Bethnal Green, flattening a number of houses and destroying
the south west corner of the Allen & Hanburys works, killing
three civilians and injuring 17 more.
1922
The firm re-built, bigger and better, and though the building
was hit again in World War II, the company survived.
1958
The company was swallowed by chemical giant Glaxo, and
today, the brand of Allen & Hanburys still remains as a small
part of the GSK portfolio, although its only legacy in the
East End is the crumbling sign on a factory wall.
27
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
T
his centre has long been host to an array of Highbury’s creative and
business-related industries. Formerly manufacturing some of the earliest
radios and televisions, the centre is due to be transformed into brand
new offices complete with on-site café and Club Workspace co-working
lounge. The reception area will feature some of the earliest models of
televisions and radios, set against the backdrop of modern Scandinavian furniture.
With its close proximity to Highbury & Islington station and the shops of Upper
Street the centre is set to be a destination for new and growing business.
28
DUE FOR
COMPLETION
AUTUMN
2013
FORMERLY
ABERDEEN
CENTRE
1918
Behind the townhouses that fronted Highbury Grove, a
factory was built for A. C. Cossor, a company responsible
for some of the important technological advances of the
20th century in radio, television and radar.
1927
The business capitalised on the growing radio market
and brought out its self-assembly ‘Melody Maker’.
1936
The first-ever TV programmes were broadcast and Cossor
was ready to meet demand with two different receivers.
As war approached the company played a crucial role in
the development of radar which was later to prove a key
factor in the Allied victory.
1945
According to an official Ministry of Information report the
utmost secrecy was enforced with staff only told about
the transmitter or receiver: never both. By the end of the
war almost every combat aircraft operated by the RAF
carried at least one item of equipment made by Cossor.
SCREENWORKS
Highbury Grove N5
1958
Cossor moved to new premises and Hilger & Watts,
producers of precision analytical instruments, moved into
Aberdeen Works where they remained until 1972.
1980s
Following a number of other occupants the Works began
to be used as a business centre in the late 1980s.
1995
The site was acquired by Workspace Group and renamed
Aberdeen Centre.
29
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Here’s a selection of other
exciting redevelopments
coming soon…
WANDSWORTH
BUSINESS VILLAGE
Wandsworth SW18
This former Gas Works site will be
transformed with purpose-built
creative studios in Wandsworth Town
Centre. This is part of The Filaments
residential development, creating a
new £120 million town centre quarter
which will include restaurants, homes,
courtyards and pocket parks adjacent
to Southside Shopping Centre and
St. George’s Park. There will be 120 new
business studios ranging in size from
100–5,000 sqft. The development is
due for completion December 2014.
WESTMINSTER
BUSINESS SQUARE
Vauxhall SE11
Phase 1 of the redevelopment is now
complete with an additional 4,750 sqft
of new space at the centre. Future
phases will see a new landscaped
piazza with café. Studio sizes will range
from 300–5,000 sqft and is due for
completion Autumn 2015.
30
PROPOSED
SCHEME
GRAND UNION CENTRE
Ladbroke Grove W10
Part of an £80 million development
of homes, restaurant/café, shops,
creative studios and work space on
Ladbroke Grove. The scheme consists
of 150 business studios arranged
around a central garden with sizes from
200–5,000 sqft. The development is
due for completion Quarter 2 2015.
BISCUIT FACTORY
Bermondsey SE16
PROPOSED
SCHEME
The former Peek Frean biscuit factory
is at the heart of a new £250 million
development which will provide a
community of 800 homes, shops,
a new one acre park and space for
creative businesses, all within five
minutes of Bermondsey station
(Jubilee line). The redevelopment will
create 120 new business studios
ranging in size from 150–5,000 sqft.
THE FAIRCHARM
Greenwich SE8
The Faircharm will have a range of
housing and live/work space with an
on-site café and gallery space. There
will be 75 business units ranging in
size from 180–4,000 sqft. The site is
due for completion Summer 2015.
BOW ENTERPRISE PARK
Bromley-by-Bow E3
Part of a £100 million development of
homes, shops, creative studios and light
industrial workshops, surrounding
communal gardens and a new public
square on Devon’s Road, Bow. Ten new
light industrial units will be available,
ranging in size from 1,000–2,500 sqft.
The property is well connected by
public transport with the DLR station
only three stops from Stratford and five
stops from Canary Wharf.
31
Appendix 2
Marshgate
Marshgate Lane, London, E15 2NH
For Workspace 14 Limited
October 2014
The redevelopment of the Marshgate Lane Site
is an important part of the regeneration of the
Pudding Mill area, creating a sustainable mix of
uses including employment and residential as well
as providing a variety of high quality buildings and
well designed landscaped spaces.
The proposals have taken account of the existing
context but also the emerging context, evolving from
the Legacy Community Scheme, which is beginning
to be brought forward in the local area. The
proposals also take account of the requirement for
future transport links requiring a bus route through
the site.
The development will provide 268 dwellings of which
32% are proposed as family units. It is expected
the scheme could deliver up to 32% affordable
housing, subject to viability. The development will
also provide nearly 3000 sq m of employment use
which is flexible but may be studios or office, with
some elements of retail.
The layout of the buildings respond to the courtyards
and streets indicated in the adjacent LCS masterpaln
with buildings of a range of heights from two to
twelve storeys. The buildings draw on the industrial
and earlier heritage of the site in their use of brick
and the patterned reconstituted stone.
The spaces created between the buildings offer a
wide variety of landscaped spaces most of which are
public with others being for residents use only. All
parking is at basement level.
The development aims to achieve high standards
of sustainability with ecological improvements to
the site, extensive use of renewable energy and
achieving Level 4 in the Code for Sustainable Homes
standards.
The development is welcomed by the local residents
who recognise that it will regenerate an unattractive
site and bring activity and public space to the area.
Marshgate Business Centre
Summary of proposals
Scheme details
Existing Use
1.
•
•
•
•
•
B1 (business): 1,400sqm
B2 (general industrial): 100sqm
B8 (storage/ distribution): 7,110sqm
Total existing = 8,610sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA)
Existing floorspace is 50% vacant
32,752sqm GIA comprising:
268 residential units (29,824sqm GIA) including 7 townhouses
2,928sqm GIA of Business (B1) floorspace, of which 120sqm to be
used as ancillary café
Floorspace distributed over 8 main buildings
Financial viability appraisal is still being discussed
2.
Proposed Use/ Unit
Numbers/ Floorspace
(Gross Internal Area)
•
3.
Jobs and Employment
•
•
4.
Proposed/ approved
building heights
(comparison)
5.
Sustainability
6.
S106/ CIL/ Infrastructure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Existing: 26
Proposed: Estimated net increase of 208 FTE jobs subject to agreeing
level of employment floorspace
Building 1- maximum height of 12 storeys
Buildings 2, 3 and 7 – eight storeys
Buildings 4, 6 and 8 – six storeys
Building 5 – three storey townhouses
•
BREEAM: Very good
•
Sustainable Homes Level 4
•
Energy savings: 35% over Part L 2013
•
Renewable energy: On site CHP will provide 65% of site’s thermal
demand
•
SUDS: Sustainable Water Drainage Plan- discharged at Greenfield
run-off rate
S106 payments subject to viability
Safeguarding of land for bridge link
Appendix 3
;§LEGACY
= DEVELOPMENJ
!! GDRPORAJ~ON
Level 10, 1 Stratford Place
Montfichet Road
London E20 1EJ
Tel : +44 (0) 20 3288 1800
Fax: +44 (0) 20 3288 1851
[email protected]
Miss Laura Jenkinson
GVA
10 Stratton Street
London
W1J 8JR
29/01/2015
Dear Laura,
POST SUBM ISSION COMMENTS - PROPOSED MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT@
MARSHGATE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, STRATFORD- 14/00422/FUL
I am writing further to your submission of the above mentioned planning application and your
meeting with colleagues on the 9th December 2014.
This letter is intended to provide a framework for you to decide how best to proceed with the
planning application . I would like to reiterate that PPDT and LLDC Officers continue to be
committed to working with you in order to achieve a scheme which meets the housing and
employment priorities for the area whilst demonstrating the highest design and environmental
quality that is required of this strategically important site as supported by London Plan Policy
2.4 (The Games and their Legacy).
There have been a series of pre-application meetings to discuss the possible redevelopment of
the site; I am attaching copies of the correspondence following those meetings which sets out
LLDC's consistent advice.
Relevant Policies: The key policies in relation to the issues that are being raised are contained
within the NPPF, the London Plan, the OLSPG, Newham's Core Strategy, and LLDC's
emerging Local Plan. The LLDC Local Plan has been published and public examination is
scheduled for early March and is material to the consideration of the application in addition to
Newham's existing Core Strategy. LLDC has published the Pudding Mill Masterplan, a detailed
Land Use and Design Framework published as part of the Local Plan evidence base principally
to facilitate a comprehensive approach to the Pudding Mill Area, in which your site falls, and
cover issues where there was an identified need for an updated position.
Policy Issues: As has been stated at various meetings given the location of the site, a
proposal founded upon residential principles would not have an in principle conflict with Policy
as long as the environmental impact of the overall proposal is demonstrated to be acceptable,
and the employment aspect of the proposals meets Policy objectives.
Land Use Mix- Employment:
We have repeatedly stressed that one of the Corporation 's key objectives for this development
is that a significantly higher employment floorspace than proposed is achieved on this site. It is
therefore disappointing to see that the employment element in the application appears to be
only provide 8.7% of the total floors pace proposed and particularly so coming from an
affordable workspace provider.
PROTECT- LLDC CHANGE
Achieving 25% non residential floorspace is clearly specified within the LLDC Local Plan (see
site allocation text SA4.3 Pudding Mill). It has also been explored in detail within the Pudding
Mill Land Use and Design Framework. To be clear, the site allocation requirement is 25% nonresidential floorspace across the site allocation area as a whole, which is also equivalent to the
LCS permission requirement in this location. Providing 25% employment is considered
fundamental in terms of achieving the Convergence objectives set out in the OLSPG which
seeks deliver fundamental economic, social and environmental change within east London and
close the deprivation gap between the Olympic Growth Boroughs and rest of London. Policy J1
of the Core Strategy identifies the area as a preferred location for B 1a office uses, stating that
managed workspace may be a favourable end use as part of any employment land uses on this
site given its SIL designation.
With the recent National Infrastructure Plan publication and related confirmation that significant
public and private sector investment is being committed to enable the delivery of a new
teaching and research based campus for UCL as part of the broader cultural and university
quarter around the aquatic centre within QEOP, the Legacy Corporation is committed to playing
its part in enabling the delivery of land uses which will generate substantial employment and
economic benefit. Pudding Mill as the nearest substantial development area to Olympicopolis,
should in the Corporation's view (as reflected in both the publication Local Plan and the PML
Masterplan) be playing its part in seeking to meet the existing and future economic activity to
ensure a genuinely sustainable form of regeneration.
We have explained that we want to see a scheme that works from an employment space offer
and would be prepared to consider this against other elements of the proposal and find it
disappointing that this advice has been largely ignored and the quantum of employment space
offered has remained unchanged.
Blocks 01 and 02 should be at least 50% employment. When other comments are also
incorporated into the scheme, such as heights of blocks as discussed below, this would result in
a non-residential floors pace much closer to the required 25% (our calculations put it at
approximately 23% ).
Affordable Housing and Family Housing: The affordable and family housing provision is also
below the requirements of Policies H1 and H2 in the Core Strategy. Your proposal equates to
31% affordable and 32% family housing based upon scheme viability. As you know, PPDT's
advisors are currently reviewing the submitted viability report and this will form the basis of
discussion at our next meeting. You will note that this issue has also been raised by LB
Newham.
Policy- Heights and Massing: Whilst we appreciate there has been a reduction in the
general heights of the development from the pre-application stage, the scale of the
development is still considered to be excessive.
You have consistently referred to the height of the towers on Stratford High Street and the
proposed LCS PDZ8 development as justification for the heights and massing proposed within
your own development. We have advised that the scale of your development should step down
in relation to Stratford High Street and this is reflected in policy and guidance (OLSPG and Core
Strategy and the LLDC publication Local Plan), which makes it clear in requiring heights of 4-6
storeys. In addition the Pudding Mill Land Use and Design Framework sets out development
heights of 4-6 storeys and for developments to be street based with building height to street
width ratio being 1:1. We have also advised you that the LCS scheme is a parameter based
outline permission the detail design of which is dependent on consideration of other matters
including densities, Design Codes (building types, layout, sunlight daylight etc.) and Zonal
Masterplans (not yet been submitted).
You will also note that the GLA's Stage 1 response also refers to the OLSPG which promotes
development of generally 4-6 storeys in this area.
PROTECT- LLDC CHANGE
CIL I Section 106- Heads of Terms: On the basis that a decision is made before the 61h April
the permission will be subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and in those circumstances we
would need to set up a meeting fairly shortly to discuss the Heads of Terms. Should the
decision be made after the 61h April then the development will be subject to LLDC's GIL (see
table below) as well as the Mayoral GIL. However there would still be a requirement for a
Section 106 agreement for scheme specific mitigation and affordable housing etc.
Exclusive of
Mayoral CIL
Development Type
Proposed Legacy
Corporation CIL
Charge (£/m2)
All residential development
Convenience supermarkets and
superstores and retail warehouses
£60
£100
(over 1000 sq m).
Hotels
£100
Student Accommodation
£100
Comparison and all other retail
(A1-A5) in 'Stratford Retail Area'.
£100
Comparison and all other retail (A1A5) outside 'Stratford Retail Area'.
Nil
All other uses except education and
health care
Nil
Education and Healthcare
Nil
Planning Performance Agreement: It is noted that there is a PPA in place, however, a revised
timetable is likely to be needed to be agreed dependent on when revised information is
received.
Summary: Whilst LLDC is supportive of the principle of a mixed use redevelopment within the
site, and it is acknowledged that the application submission has been amended following preapplication discussion, further amendments are considered necessary in order for the proposal
to be favourably recommended to the Corporations Planning Decisions Committee as set out
above. We have a meeting scheduled for the 101h February which would be a good opportunity
to discuss your intended action in light of my comments, including the programme
consequences of making amendments to your planning application
I enclose a Schedule of Consultation responses for your information please respond as
appropriate. Please contact Anne Ogundiya as case officer to discuss any of the matters
identified in this letter.
Yours sincerely,
1Jr~~11
Anthony Hollingsworth
Director of Planning Policy and Decisions
PROTECT- LLDC CHANGE
Density: On the question of the density of the site further clarification is required to justify the
proposed density as also raised by the GLA. The density should be in accordance with London
Plan policy 3.4. That said density is only one of the parameters used in assessing the
acceptability or otherwise of a scheme. While exceeding the density ranges will not in itself be
reason to refuse an application, it may indicate that the quality of development has suffered
from unsustainable overdevelopment of the site.
Amenity Space I Public Realm I Play Space: I am concerned that the layout and provision of
the open space is minimal. I would ask that you demonstrate that what is being provided
provides a reasonable quantity and quality space for prospective residents in respect of the
Mayor's Housing SPD. It is also not clear how the play space proportion has been calculated
and how this component relates to the Mayor's Shaping Neighbourhood: Play and Informal
Recreation SPG.
Please see my comment below on the impact of servicing and delivery to the children's
playspace area.
The play areas should have a more natural style (for example Wild Kingdom at Three Mills and
Tumbling Bay in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park) and there is an opportunity for the play areas
to be linked into a continuous playable route.
The proposed sculpture on the bend of Marshgate Lane should be removed- this is not part of
the site and would be more convincing as a tree to match the rest of the public realm.
The street/boulevard between Block 04 and 06 is more of a square and should be recognised
as such. There is an opportunity to create a more varied and flexible landscape.
Servicing and Delivery: It is unclear how the whole development will be serviced for example
by delivery and service vehicles. The DAS states that vehicle access for maintenance or
emergency purposes will be controlled by the site management in the concierge office. Please
demonstrate for example how the townhouses in Building 5 can be accessed without impacting
on the children's playspace.
Towpath: Presumably the riverside route is intended to be fully publicly accessible for all and
connect with the future development to the north. Please confirm.
Lifts: It is considered that the layouts can be better configured such that bedrooms are not
immediately adjacent to lifts.
Internal circulation seems excessive in places in both employment and residential layouts.
Corridors could be decreased to a width of 1.2m which would allow for additional usable floor
space. This is particularly an issue in employment spaces due to a large proportion of the GEA
calculated as flexible employment space is actually unusable circulation space.
Parking: It is unclear how the parking is to be allocated and managed between the residential
and employment users.
LLDC Environmental and Transport Consultants: Please respond to the comments
provided to you, please note that matters relating to remediation are still outstanding.
Sustainability: We would expect you to aim for Code for Sustainable Homes Code 4, with a
minimum overall credit level score of 75 for each residential unit. I would be happy to discuss
with you further how we consider you can achieve that target in respect of the relevant
categories. We would also expect the development to achieve BREEAM Excellent.
Quality Review Panel: Once the scheme has been amended I think it prudent that you
prepare for a post-submission desk top QRP review.
PROTECT- LLDC CHANGE
Building 6: As designed, the 6th floor has a balcony in this eastern elevation which would
oversail the back gardens of the adjoining townhouses (Building 5), which are approximately
7.5m in length. Your section drawing GG does not show this relationship. In any event we are
not convinced that this relationship is acceptable particularly as this is a dual aspect unit for
which a side balcony is not essential.
The entrances should be off the 'boulevard' to mirror Block 4 which would create a more
convincing public space of the boulevard.
Building 7: Please confirm that Newham's Refuse Department (LBN contact- Jon Hastings)
have agreed the layout and arrangements for refuse collection for the development. Can you
also confirm that refuse collection for the town houses is also via Building 7. The refuse
collection is taking up important active frontage- could it be partially relocated into the basement
to allow for more small employment uses on the ground floor. It appears that the concierge
space has been included in the flexible employment space quota which is not correct- please
confirm.
Building 8: The rationale for the 1.8m separation between the northern elevation of Building 8
(proposed at 6 storeys) and the adjoining site boundary needs to be further justified in
relationship to future development to the north. There is also the potential concern of two
blocks being too close together. There is also minimal cycle/pedestrian access along this
northern edge and with the prospect of boundary fencing could result in an oppressive
environment. The design needs refinement to ensure that the north facade is not treated as a
rear elevation and should relate convincingly to the consented LCS scheme. To that end you
should explore whether delivering some public realm or street interface to the LCS scheme.
It is also regrettable to note that the majority of the wheelchair accessible/convertible units are
single aspect. The relationship between the wheelchair accessible/convertible unit closest to
the primary sub-station should also be looked at.
As with Building 6 the 61h floor has a balcony in this eastern elevation which would oversail the
back gardens of the adjoining townhouses (Building 5). Again your section drawing FF does
not show this relationship. In any event we are not convinced that this relationship is
acceptable particularly as this is a dual aspect unit for which a side balcony is not essential.
General Comments:
Design: The overall masterplan of the site is convincing and makes good use of the
relationship with the canal. However the general design does not yet create a strong sense of
identity. It will require careful detailed .design to ensure its success
Materials: We consider the proposed palette of materials to be good; the use of brick reflects
the industrial heritage of the site and is compatible with the character of the local streetscene
and surrounding area. However, I would ask that you revisit the bronze anodized material
which appears to be excessively used across the development, alternative finishes should be
considered.
We would also consider it helpful to give examples of other developments where the patterned
concrete cladding has been used. It would also be helpful for you to submit the brick samples
for inspection.
We are also pleased to see that the residential units are tenure blind. There seems to be
excessive amounts of non-active frontages which would require careful detailed design to
ensure that the vented/louvered doors do not harm to aesthetics of the buildings. It may be
easier to move some of the spaces, e.g. bike storage and sub-station, into the basement to
allow for more active frontages on the ground floor.
Building 1, the 12 storey tower, should be significantly reduced, it is considered to be of
excessive bulk and mass detrimental to visual amenity. Any proposed additional height beyond
the maximum stated policy height of 6 storeys should be justified and be on the basis of there
being no adverse impact on its setting and on neighbouring properties. The link building could
however increase in height, and essentially accommodate some of the excess height lost from
Block 01, whilst remaining subordinate in height to the principal buildings (Building 1 and 2).We
may be prepared for blocks B2 and B3 to be 6 storeys but with additional 2 storeys that are set
back, which will address the issues of the perceived overbearing bulk and massing. Reducing
the heights thereby reducing the number of units will also increase the proportion of the
development given over to employment floors pace as well as meeting the objectives of
creating a quality townscape. Buildings 4, 6 and 8 should be reduced to no more than 5
storeys.
Specific Design Matters: All policies in the Core Strategy are underpinned by the requirement
that development proposals must satisfy the environmental policies set out in the Plan. Policy
SP3 of the Plan is an all-encompassing policy through which seeks to ensure that all new
developments are satisfactorily located and are of a high standard of design and layout by
taking into account various identified factors.
It has been suggested to you that any proposal would need to convincingly demonstrate that
the provisions of the environmental policies would be satisfied. To this end you should address
the following concerns:
Building 1: unacceptable conflict between pedestrians and vehicles: The reception entrance
with a loading area directly opposite is poorly designed and should be revisited. The loading
bay could be relocated onto the street, reducing issues with layout of pavement and dropped
curbs and would allow for a more inviting entrance into the employment building. The entrance
to this building and 'Character Area' is considered to be underwhelming and more should be
made of it as a focal entrance to the core employment area.
We remain to be convinced that Building 1 with its link to building 2 is a separate 'Character
Area' or that a landmark building is necessary in this location. There needs to be a more visually
cohesive link between building 1 and 2.
Blocks 01 and 02 and link section should not read as three different buildings but should have
consistency in architectural expression. The link building should have more presence, and could
be the same height as the other two blocks to create a U-shaped block as discussed in previous
feedback.
Building 2: Please provide a ground floor plan for this building. Given the orientation of this
block close to other building there is concern at the number of single aspect units in this block.
Building 3: Floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor employment level seem low, especially
towards the canal.
The three blocks along the street (02, 03 and 07) do not need to be identical in terms of
architectural expression (think more of a typical street where buildings would have common
datum lines and perhaps some commonality of materials but not be expressed identically) Block 02 should relate to Block 01 rather than Block 03
Building 4: The western flanks of Buildings 4, 6 and 8 could do with some relief in the form of
windows, which could for example be narrow and obscure glazed. Please advise why they are
blank, if it is for reasons of overlooking which calls into question the reasons for introducing
windows on the opposite ends of those buildings.
Building 5: There appears to be no provision for cycle storage for these properties. There is a
lack of architectural refinement and there is nothing gained by having different colour bricks in a
random pattern. It is suggested that the garden wall could be of a consistent brick specification
to unify the row of terraces.
GREATER 0 DO AUTHORITY
Development, Enterprise and Environment
Anne Ogundiya
Our ref: D&P/3347 /01
Your ref: 14/00422/FUL
Date: 13 January 2015
Head of Development Management
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place
Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ
London Legacy Developme~t Corporation
2 1 JAN 2015
Dear Anne Ogundiya,
Rece1ved
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority
Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order
2008
Land at Marshgate Lane, Pudding Mill Lane, E15
LPA reference 14/00422/FUL
I refer to the copy of the above planning application, which was received from you, on behalf of the
London Legacy Development Corporation, on the 17 November 2014. On the 13 January 2015, Sir
Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff, acting under delegated authority, considered a
report on this proposal; reference D&P/3347/01. A copy of the report is attached, in full. This
letter comprises the statement that the Mayor is required to provide under Article 4(2) of the
Order.
The Deputy Mayor considers that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the
reasons set out in paragraph 84 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set
out in the paragraph could address these deficiencies.
If the London Legacy Development Corporation subsequently resolves to grant permission on the
application, it must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order and allow him fourteen
days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council
under Article 6 to refuse the application. You should therefore send me a copy of any
representations made in respect of the application, and a copy of any officer's report, together with
a statement of the decision your authority proposes to make, a statement of any conditions the
authority proposes to impose and (if applicable) a draft of any planning obligation it proposes to
enter into and details of any proposed planning contribution.
City H a ll, London, SE1 2AA • london.gov.uk • 020 7983 4000
If the London Legacy Development Corporation resolves to refuse permission it need not consult
the Mayor again (pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Order), and the Corporation may therefore
proceed to determine the application without further reference to the GLA. However, the
Corporation should still send a copy of the decision notice to the Mayor, pursuant to Article 5 (3)
of the Order.
Please note that the Transport for London case officer for this application is Timothy Neale
([email protected]), telephone 020 3054 7036.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Wilson
Senior Manager - Development & Projects
cc
John Biggs, London Assembly Constituency Member
Nicky Gavron, Chair of London Assembly Planning Committee
National Planning Casework Unit, DCLG
Alex Williams, TfL
Laura Jenkinson, GVA, 10 Stratton Street, London, WlJ BJR
-2-
London Legacy Development Corporation
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
2 1 JAN 2015
planni ~g repo~-W3347/Q1
13 January 2015
Land at Marshgate Lane, Pudding Mill Lane,
Stratford, ElS
In the London Borough of Newham. (London Legacy Development
Corporation)
planning application no. 14/00422/FUL
Strategic planning application Stage 1 referral
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.
The proposal
Demolition of existing buildings and primarily residential development comprising 268 residential
units and 3,363 sq.m. of new 81 employment floorspace.
The applicant
The applicant is Workspace and the architect is Squire
and Partners.
Strategic issues
The application raises strategic planning issues in respect of proposed uses, the 2012 Games
and their Legacy, housing and affordable housing, urban design, inclusive design,
sustainable developmentr energy and transport.
Recommendation
That the London Legacy Development Corporation be advised that the application does not
comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 84 of this report; but that the
possible remedies set out in this paragraph could address these deficiencies. The application
does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Corporation resolves to refuse permission,
but it must be referred back if the Corporation resolves to grant permission.
Context
1
On the 17 November 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from the London
Legacy Development Corporation notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic
importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of the Town &
Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the London
Legacy Development Corporation with a statement setting out whether he considers that the
application complies with the London Plan and his reasons for taking that view.
page 1
2
This report sets out information for the Mayor's use in deciding what decision to make.
3
The application is referable under Categories 1A. 1 (Development which comprises or
includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats) and 1 C. 1.3 (A building
more than 30 metres high outside the City of London), of the Schedule to the Order 2008.
4
Once the London Legacy Development Corporation has resolved to determine the
application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision, as to whether to direct
refusal or allow the Corporation to determine it itself, unless otherwise advised. In this instance if
the Corporation resolves to refuse permission it need not refer the application back to the Mayor.
5
The Mayor of London's statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website
www.london.gov.uk.
Site description
6
The site is located to the north of Bow Back River and to the west of City Mill River and is
approximately 1.33 hectare in size. It is situated within the London Borough of Newham, though
the local planning authority is the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). Vehicle
access to Stratford High Street is provided via Marshgate Lane and the site faces a four storey
residential building across Bow Back River, cleared sites used for the 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games, and the two storey City Mill lock keepers cottage and lock.
7
The site currently comprises a number of predominately two storey industrial buildings
and open yard space managed by Workspace (the applicant) for a range of light industrial, office,
studio and workshop uses. Workspace itself is a private company specialising in managing, renting
and developing business premises.
8
The site is located approximately 150 metres from A 118 Stratford High Street, (which
forms part of the Strategic Road Network - SRN) and 400 metres from the A 11 I A 12 Bow
Roundabout, part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).
9
Pudding Mill Lane is the nearest station on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) which is
approximately 250m away. There are other stations all approximately 1km from the site (which
are not included in the PTAL walking assessment), at Bromley-by-Bow and Bow Road (District
line) Stratford High Street (DLR), Bow Church (DLR) and Stratford Regional Station
(Underground, National Rail, DLR and Overground). Five daytime bus services operate on
Stratford High Street. The nearest eastbound stop is 200m from the site, whereas the nearest
westbound bus stop, which is opposite Cooks Road, requires a detour to cross the High Street.
The newly opened Cycle Superhighway 2 (C52) runs along the High Street, providing a fully
segregated route between Bow Roundabout and Stratford town centre.
10
The applicant's PTAL assessment records a public transport accessibility level (PTAL)
between 3 (average) and 4 (good) at points across the site on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is the
highest.
Details of the proposal
11
Demolition of existing buildings and their replacement by a primarily residential
development comprising 261 flats and 3,363 sq.m. (2,928 sq.m. gross internal) of employment
floorspace in 7 mixed use buildings varying In height between 6 and 12 stories, together with an
eight block containing seven, three storey town houses.
page2
Planning history
12
A pre-planning application meeting was held at City Hall on the 20 February 2014 where
advice given on the matters set out below. TfL has also provided separate detailed transport
advice to the applicant and the LLDC.
Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
13
•
•
•
•
The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
Proposed uses
The 2012 Games & Legacy
Urban design
Housing
• Inclusive design
• Sustainable development
• Transport
• Crossrail
London Plan;
London Plan;
London Plan;
London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised
Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Providing for
Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation SPG:
London Plan; Accessible London SPG;
London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor's
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor's Climate Change
Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor's Water Strategy.
London Plan; the Mayor's Transport Strategy;
London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail
SPG.
14
For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
the development plan in force for the area is the 2012 London Borough of Newham Core
Strategy, the saved policies from Newham's Unitary Development Plan and the 2011 London Plan
(with 2013 Alterations).
15
The following are also relevant material considerations:
•
The National Planning Policy Framework and associated Technical Guide.
•
The Mayor's Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance, (OLSPG), 2012.
•
The draft Further Alterations to the London Plan, (Intend to Publish version,
December 2014).
•
The LLDC's Publication Draft Local Plan, (August 2014)- with minor amendments
and corrections.
Planning context
16
The site currently forms part of wider Strategic Industrial Location as defined in the
London Plan. This designation is confirmed by Newham Council's Core Strategy which sets out
the following description and policy approach for the wider area:
page3
•
The site will be de-designated from a Strategic Industrial Location in order to realise
its regeneration potential and ensure good relationship with surrounding new and
rejuvenated areas in line with Policy J2. Bearing in mind levels of accessibility and
availability of planned and existing supporting facilities the site is to be developed for
mixed use comprising employment uses (including the retention of an employment
buffer zone adjacent to the A12 and Crossrail portal), residential and community uses
with a new local centre focused around Pudding Mill Lane DLR station, and improved
links north -south through the site to Stratford High Street. Primary education and
health facilities are likely to be provided. Indicative residential typology- medium
density, high family.
Page 49 (S09 Pudding Mill lane)
17
The Mayor's 2012 Olympic Legacy Supplementary planning Guidance promotes the
following approach to change in the area in which the site is located:
•
Pudding Mill Lane is currently identified by the Mayor as a strategic industrial location
(SIL) and is partially safeguarded for Crossrail construction. However, it is surrounded
by waterways on three sides, and has significant post-Games regeneration potential,
which could see it transformed from a predominantly industrial area into a new mixed
use neighbourhood.
•
The Mayor believes the parts of Pudding Mill Lane should be developed at a lower
scale than much of its surroundings, (generally four to six storeys), to provide a mix of
uses including family housing, employment and social and community uses that
maximise the amenity value of the waterside environments provided by the City Mill
and Bow Back rivers.
•
A new 'hub' could be created around Pudding Mill Lane station providing local shops
and services together with additional employment and residential uses. Alternatively
such a hub could be provided closer to Stratford High Street, providing a direct
connection to the DLR station is achieved.
•
Buildings between Bow Back River and Stratford High Street could be significantly
higher so as to respond to the higher scale of recent developments along the High
Street and to again provide a barrier against traffic impact, though care should be ·
taken to ensure that the more family focussed parts of the area have adequate
sunlight and amenity.
Page 81 (Southern Olympic Fringe - Urban form)
•
In all cases the aim should be to provide a mix of new uses that will complement each
other, bring new jobs and homes into the area,(particularly for families), and maximise
access to and appreciation of the area's waterways. This change will need to be
carefully managed as not all parts of the sub-area are equally suitable for residential
or employment use, and new local open spaces, community facilities and connections
must also be planned for and provided. The balance between demolition, sensitive
infill and restoration will also require careful urban design analysis.
Page 75 (Southern Olympic Fringe - Context)
18
The LLDC's draft Local plan proposes the following site allocation for Pudding Mill within
which the application site is located:
page4
•
A new medium-density, mixed-use area, including a significant and diverse element of
new and replacement business floorspace, including spaces suitable for small and
medium-sized businesses; a new Local Centre adjacent to Pudding Mill Lane DLR
Station and Pudding Mill Lane; new homes including a significant element of family
housing; new Local Open Space, play space and public realm. Cumulatively across the
Pudding Mill Site Allocation, 25 per cent non-residential floorspace should be
achieved, with a predominantly industrial floorspace use mix in the area to the west of
Cooks Road and around the Crossrail portal.
Page 21 8 (Site Allocation SA4 3: Pudding Mill)
19
It also puts forward the following requirements and guidance for new development within
the area which included:
•
Open Space/playspace needs to be provided alongside development and located
within pockets across the site.
•
Non-residential uses should be focused along a new central east-west street.
•
The form of development should allow for improved east-west connections through
the site.
•
A significant proportion of family homes should be provided.
20
There is therefore a high degree of consensus between the strategic and local planning
authorities on how the area within which the site is located should evolve. Namely that:
•
Whilst the application site is currently protected industrial land, it has the potential for
release to form part of a new mixed use neighbourhood.
•
This mix of uses should include significant levels of family housing, employment and
social and community uses, including new local open spaces, and provide connections
into and across the area.
•
Whilst the wider area is suitable for medium density housing (typically 4 to 6 storeys)
that secured high levels of family housing, it should also continue to provide a
significant range of employment floorspace that includes premises suitable for small
and medium-sized businesses as well as managed and supported workspace.
•
New development should maximise the amenity value of the waterside environment of
City Mill and Bow Back rivers and a balance should be struck between demolition,
infill and restoration.
Principle of development
Loss of employment use
21
As set out above, the site is currently within a designated Strategic Industrial Location
(SIL) where residential uses are normally resisted. However, in this particular case the SIL the site
is within has been identified for release in the Mayor's OLSPG and in Newham's Core Strategy.
The introduction of residential uses into this area and onto the application site is therefore
acceptable in strategic planning terms.
New commercial uses
pageS
22
The inclusion of commercial floorspace as part of a mixed use scheme is strongly
supported and would help achieve the mix of uses that strategic and local policy and guidance
requires. The applicant was advised at the pre-application stage that this should take the form of
premises suitable for small and medium-sized businesses and include managed and supported
workspace, particularly as such uses already exist on the site and contribute to the local economy.
This should be verified and robustly secured in any planning permission.
The 2012 Games & their legacy
23
The London Plan sets out the Mayor's vision for the sustainable development of the
capital and paragraph 1.54 and policies 1.1 and 2.4 confirm that he will apply the Plan's
objectives and principles to the new and existing neighbourhoods in the Lea Valley associated
with the 2012 Games and reinforce his objective to promote social and economic convergence
between east London and other parts of the city.
24
The application site is within the area covered by the Mayor's OLSPG, which provides
advice on how he wishes his strategic planning priorities to be applied to the area it covers. The
OLSPG sets out an overall vision for the area, which includes making it one of the best places to
live and work in London, improving connectivity across and into the new Queen Elizabeth
Olympic Park, and creating new family housing and schools. It then includes a series of
development principles that are expected to be applied to planning applications and includes
more detailed guidance for each of its 5 sub areas.
25
The OLSPG's Core development principle addresses convergence and states that planning
applications in the OLSPG area should demonstrate how they will help close the deprivation gap
between the Olympic host boroughs and the rest of London and that one way this can done is for
planning applications in the OLSPG area that propose more than 100 residential units or 1,000
sq.m. of new floorspace or uses to include a statement setting out how they will help achieve
convergence outcomes. The appli~ant has prepared such a statement that sets out how this might
be achieved. These objectives and outcomes should be clearly embedded within any planning
approval, specifically to ensure that local people will have access to the employment
opportunities the scheme would deliver.
Housing
26
The applicant was advised at pre-application stage that new housing on this site was
welcomed and would help achieve local and strategic housing targets. It was also advised that its
proposals would be expected to deliver a mix of housing sizes and tenures that accorded with
local and strategic policy, that it would need to maximise affordable housing output, that it
should hold early discussions with registered providers, demonstrate that its planning application
would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and prepare and submit a
viability report that GLA officers would expect would be independently assessed by the LLDC.
Housing mix
27
The applicant is proposing the following housing mix "subject to viability":
Social rented/affordable
Intermediate
Mark.t
Total
Studio
0
0
0
0
1 bed
2bed
26
7
14
0
78
58
118
65
3bed
4bed
Total
7
31
0
0
44
3
3
82
40
45
183
268
page6
28
This equates to 31% affordable housing and 32% family (3 or 4 bedroom) housing. Forty
five percent (38) of the 85 affordable units would be family sized units.
Affordable housing
29
London Plan policy 3.12 requires local planning authorities to seek the maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and
mixed- use schemes and to have regard to local targets and London Plan policy 3.11 which looks
for 60% of new affordable housing to be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale.
The Mayor's Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan address the introduction of affordable
rent.
30
Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges local planning authorities to take
account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision.
The lhree Dragons' development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodologies are
recommended for this purpose.
31
Pre-application discussions relating to affordable housing were limited and the applicant
is now proposing that 85 of its proposed units would be affordable (subject to viability) which
would be 31% of the total units, though this is not assured at this stage.
32
The applicant is understood to have submitted a viability assessment to the LLDC which it
is currently assessing. The LLDC should therefore continue to assess the scheme's viability to
ensure that it would provide the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing it can. All
assessments should then be shared with the GLA before the scheme is referred back to the Mayor
at Stage 2.
Housing choice
33
London Plan policy 3.11 stresses the importance of family housing and policy 3.8 confirms
that affordable family housing is also a strategic priority. As set out above, the applicant is
proposing that 85 (32%) of the units would be family sized units, with 45% (38) of the affordable
units family sized. Whilst the focus on family sized affordable housing is welcomed and
supported, as recommended to the applicant at pre-application stage, it is suggested that it (and
the LLDC) look to increase the total number of family sized units the scheme would provide given
its characteristics and riverside location.
Density
34
London Plan policy 3.4 requires development to optimise housing output for different
locations taking into account local context and character, design principles set out in London
Plan Chapter 7 and the public transport capacity; Table 3.2 provides density guidelines in support
of this. The applicant anticipates that a developed and more accessible site would have a public
transport accessibility level (PTAL) of between 3 and 4. Within an urban setting, the London Plan
would suggest a density range of between 170-260 u/ha or 200-700 hr/ha, with an expectation
that the density would be in the middle of these ranges.
35
The applicant contends that the proposed development would have a residential density
of 582 habitable rooms per hectare. The GLA's preferred methodology would however indicate a
density of 625 habitable rooms per hectare or 222 units per hectare if the density methodology
set out in paragraph 1.3.47 of the Mayors Housing SPG is used.
36
The proposed density could be acceptable from a strategic planning perspective should a
PTAL of 4 be achievable across the majority of the site. As set out below, this should be discussed
further with TfL officers and its concerns clarified and addressed.
page7
Residential standards and quality
37
The applicant has submitted an assessment of its proposed residential units against the
standards set out in the Mayor's Housing SPG which is welcomed with floor to ceiling heights,
units per core and units sizes either meet or exceeded adopted standards. However, the overall
number of single aspect units has not been confirmed by the applicant but it has stated that "'less
than 13% of the proposed units would be single aspect north facing units" - all of which would
be one bedroom units. This could hqwever mean that 34 units would be single aspect and north
facing which is relatively high for a scheme of this nature. The applicant should therefore clarify
the total number of single aspect units it is proposing and look to reduce the number of single
aspect north facing units the scheme would contain.
Children's play space
38
The applicant was advised at pre-application stage to take account of London Plan policy
3.6, which seeks to ensure that development proposals include suitable provision for play and
recreation and ensure that sufficient space is provided in accordance with the estimated expected
child population of the completed development. The GLA's child yield calculator suggests that
the completed scheme would be likely to result in 81 children, and hence 810 sq.m. of play space
should be provided.
Number of children
96
Under 5
33
5496
5 to 11
18
3096
12+
9
1596
Total
61
10096
39
The applicant has indicated that it will provide 265 sq.m. of formal playspace, 109 sq.m.
of formal courtyard play space, and 332 sq.m. of informal play space. This would provide a total
of 696 sq.m. which is below the Mayor's adopted standard. Furthermore, the applicant has not
produced a robust play strategy. These matters should be addressed before the scheme is
referred back to the Mayor at Stage 2 to demonstrate full compliance with the London Plan. It
could also usefully liaise with the LLDC to identify opportunities to provide or enhance existing or
proposed play facilities in the immediate area.
Urban design
40
The site is bounded by Legacy Community Scheme development sites to its northern,
eastern and western boundaries which have shaped and informed its design. It has also evolved
significantly and positively since the pre-application stage and now proposes seven mixed use
buildings varying in height between 6 and 12 stories, together with an eighth building containing
seven, 3 storey town houses. The scheme would be predominately brick faced with an attractive
combination of recessed and external balconies. A new public connection would be provided
along the northern edge of Bow Back River and the scheme has also been designed to
accommodate a new bridge that would allow for bus connection and between Pudding Mill Lane
and Stratford High Street.
41
The height of the proposed scheme varies with the taller twelve storey element marking
the crossing of Marshgate Lane and Bow Back River. These heights are significantly higher than
those envisaged within the OLSPG and Newham's Core Strategy, though are reduced from those
shown at pre application stage. The residential quality of the scheme is high with care taken to
generally provide an attractive, safe and animated public realm across the site which would
provide prominent and well located cores and entrances accessed from within the public realm.
pageS
42
However, the differentiation and separation of public and private space across the site is
not totally clear in a number of areas, for example fronting Bow Back Rivers and within the
proposed courtyard. A number of frontages also appear dominated by refuse and cycle storage,
though most do not.
43
These matters have been discussed with the applicant who has acknowledged the need to
further develop these aspects of its proposals to ensure the scheme and its public and private
spaces would be safe, well used and legible.
44
Detailed landscape proposals should also reflect the future role of Marshgate Lane and
the design and impact of the proposed new bridge and cycle connection. Care is therefore
needed to manage the interaction between pedestrians, cyclists and buses in this location,
especially around the proposed 'Marshgate Square' which is treated partially as a shared surface.
The use of a SOmm upstand kerb to differentiate between pedestrian and vehicular areas will help
to reduce issues of conflict between users, but in all areas clear separation and demarcation
between areas where vehicles can and can't access is needed.
45
Whilst the proposed temporary surface treatment could work well for a pedestrian space,
it would be helpful to better understand the aspiration for treatment of this surface in the event
that the bridge link is implemented, which should also be secured by a 5106 clause or condition.
Similarly, where tree planting is shown between Buildings 2 and 3 it should not impact on the
area safeguarded for construction of the bridge.
46
Finally, the applicant should also clarify which connections would be public and which
would be private and not accessible either for all or parts of the day. This has been discussed with
the applicant who has agreed to consider these matters further and provide a consolidated
annotated landscaping plan to clarify its proposed approach to this and other urban design,
transport and inclusive design matters.
Inclusive design
47
The applicant was advised at pre-application that the following issues should be
addressed and clearly confirmed in any planning application:
•
10% of all units should be wheelchair accessible and the applicant should provide a
detailed plan of these units, which in turn should be mixed across unit sizes and
tenures.
•
Drop off points should be provided as close as possible to principal entrances.
It was also advised that disabled persons parking should be provided within the site,
48
designed to the guidance found in BS8300:2009 + A1:2010 and adequate parking spaces for
disabled people must be provided, preferably onsite and as set out in the Mayor's November
2012 Housing SPG, each wheelchair accessible dwelling should have an associated accessible
parking space, and that all of the above should be detailed within any submitted design and
access statement which would also show how inclusive design principles had influenced and
shaped the scheme.
page9
49
The applicant has confirmed that all residential units will be designed to the Lifetime
Homes standards and that 10% will be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable homes. This is
welcomed in line with London Plan Policy 3.8 Housing Choice. The design and access statement
should however demonstrate that the design of the residential units meets the sixteen Lifetime
Home standards and that the wheelchair accessible homes meet the standards set out in the
Housing SPG. It should also be clear on the submitted plans where the wheelchair accessible
homes are located and how many there are of each tenure, which should be distributed across
sizes and tenures to give disabled and older people similar choices to non-disabled people.
50
These matters should be fully addressed to demonstrate full compliance with all relevant
London Plan policies and guidance, ideally by consolidating its approach into an Inclusive Access
Strategy in line with London Plan policy and standards that would also show how inclusive design
principles have influenced and shaped the scheme.
Sustainable development
51
The applicant has prepared and submitted detailed environmental documentation
including energy, sustainability, water resources and flood risk, wind, noise and vibration, air
quality, ecology and contamination. This is welcomed and subject to resolution of the energy
matters set out below, are satisfactory from a strategic planning perspective.
Energy
Overview
52
The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy and sufficient information has
been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. Further revisions and information are
however required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and its carbon dioxide
savings verified.
Energy efficiency standards
53
A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to
reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss
parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building
regulations. Other features include low energy lighting and controls, mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery, the use of accredited construction details to reduce thermal bridging, and triple
glazed windows for the domestic component of the development.
54
The applicant has stated that the dwellings will not be provided with active cooling which
is welcome. Given the high fabric efficiency of the dwellings the applicant should provide enough
evidence to demonstrate that the dwellings are not at risk of overheating and that the design has
developed in compliance with policy 5.9 on minimising overheating risk.
55
The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 53 tonnes per annum (13%) in
regulated C02 emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development.
Sample SAP outputs and BRUKL sheets have been provided to support the savings claimed. The
savings claimed, while welcome, are considered very high and the applicant should note that high
attention to detail will be required throughout the detailed design and build process to ensure
that the proposed specification is met.
page 10
District beating
56
The applicant bas identified that the Olympic Park district beating network is within the
vicinity of the development and is proposing to connect to the network. Evidence of
correspondence with the network operator bas been provided confirming that the site is too far
from the existing network to allow viable connection at this time.
57
The applicant bas however provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is
designed to allow future connection to the district beating network should one become available.
The applicant bas further confirmed that the Olympic network operator will be consulted during
the detailed design to ensure that the plant room design facilitates a future connection, which is
welcome.
58
The applicant is proposing to install a site beat network. However, the applicant should
confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site beat
network. The site beat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. This will be
approximately 150 sq.m. in size and located in the basement of block 3.
Combined Heat and Power
59
The applicant if proposing to install a 11 0 kWe gas fired CHP unit as the lead beat source
for the site beat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic bot water load, as well as a
proportion of the space beating (approximately 65% of the total). A reduction in regulated C02
emissions of 79 tonnes per annum (22%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy
hierarchy.
60
Load profiles have been provided for the proposed system. Further details should be
provided on the process used for sizing and estimating the running hours for the system as the
engine size appears excessive relative to the carbon savings claimed.
61
The applicant bas stated that the Olympic Park network operator bas expressed an
interest in managing the proposed CHP with a view to eventually integrating the site with their
beat network as this extends in the future. These discussions are welcome and should be
progressed as the development progresses. This would also help identify at an early stage a
successful long term management arrangement for the CHP.
Renewable energy technologies
62
The applicant bas investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies
and is proposing to install 50 kWp (400 sq.m.) of solar PV on the roofs of the buildings. A roof
plan showing the proposed installation bas been provided.
63
A reduction in regulated C02 emissions of 18 tonnes per annum (6%) will be achieved
through this third element of the energy hierarchy.
Conclusion
64
Based on the energy assessment submitted at stage I, a reduction of 150 tonnes of C02
per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development
is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 36%. The carbon dioxide savings would therefore
exceed the target set within policy 5.2 of the London Plan. However the comments above should
be addressed before compliance with London Plan policy can be verified and appropriate
conditions should be included within any approval requiring further information be submitted to
show that the scheme will meet Part L 2013 by efficiency alone and a further condition requiring
the overall 35% target to be met.
page 11
Transport
Car and cycle parking
65
The commercial element provides 2 accessible spaces. For the residential element 67
spaces are provided including 27 accessible spaces. This would mean that each wheelchair
accessible unit would have an associated wheelchair sized space and result in an overall ratio of
0.25 spaces per unit, which is below London Plan standards and is welcomed. The applicant
should also demonstrate how the spaces would be managed and a Car Parking Management Plan
should be secured by condition to allocate, manage and monitor parking for residential and
commercial uses. The Electrical vehicle charging points (EVCPs), which meet London Plan
standards, should also be secured by condition.
66
No car club spaces are currently proposed on the site, and the developer should provide
this and contribute towards car club membership for each residential unit and the non-residential
uses. This should be secured within the section 106 agreement. This site lies within the Residents
Parking Zone (RPZ), and residents and workers at the site should be restricted from applying for
on-street parking permits through the section 106 agreement.
67
Cycle parking for residents and non-residential users meets the Further Alterations to the
London Plan, but it needs to be confirmed that all staff employed on site will have access to
shower and changing facilities.
68
The nearest Mayo(s Cycle Hire docking station is approximately 400m away to the west
of the A12 and TfL and the GLA have recently announced that the scheme will be extended from
its current boundary to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, through the area which includes this
site.
69
To serve residents, visitors and staff TfL requests that a contribution (£1 00,000) and
space for one Cycle Hire docking station (with a minimum of 27 docking points) should be
secured from this development.
Trip generation and mitigation
70
There are some minor errors in the Transport Assessment about public transport services,
although even assuming a larger share of trips being directed to Pudding Mill Lane station, the
proposal is not expected to have an adverse impact on the DLR as an upgraded station was
recently delivered or on the wider rail or bus network. In addition, TfL does not consider that this
proposal will have a significant impact on the strategic highway network, although the cumulative
impact of this and other developments is expected to add to local demand at junctions in the
Bow area which will need to be mitigated.
71
There are ongoing initiatives to improve connectivity and local walking and cycling routes
in the vicinity of the site, as set out in the OLSPG, LLDC publication version Local Plan, and
raised in pre-application discussions, namely a new bus/cycle/pedestrian connection between
Stratford High Street and Marshgate Lane over the Bow Back River, and the Bow Vision
Programme.
page 12
72
The application creates an intermediate landscaped space between Building 2 and
Building 3, which would beneficially form part of the route to the north of a new
bus/cycle/pedestrian bridge. A similar piece of land has been kept free from development on the
south side of the Bow Back River at the 68-70 Stratford High Street consented development. The
applicant should facilitate the future construction of a bus/cycle/pedestrian bridge over the Bow
Back River by providing the necessary footings and structures within the application area. Future
access for construction should also be secured by condition.
73
Tfl are investigating short and long term options which would address local connection
improvements (which are also identified in the PERS audit) as part of the Bow Vision Programme,
to reduce the pedestrian severance of the A12 and A11 I A118/Bow flyover and support the
regeneration of the area. Subject to the removal of the west-east flyover this would include
revised junctions at the Stratford High Street junctions with Cooks Road and Marshgate Lane.
74
In line with London Plan policy 6.10, the OLSPG and LLDC draft Local Plan, Tfl considers
that a contribution towards local connectivity and permeability improvements e.g. a new
bus/cycle/pedestrian connection between Stratford High Street and Marshgate Lane and the
Bow Vision Programme is justified and should be secured through the section 106, to be pooled
with contributions from other development in the area.
75
Finally, the applicant's Planning Statement states that the PTAL "'will be further improved
with the provision of a bus, pedestrian and cycle bridge link". This however has not been
demonstrated and should be discussed with Tfl officer and to inform the acceptability of the
proposed density as set out above.
Travel, construction, and delivery and servicing plans
76
Tfl welcomes the submission of framework Travel Plans, which have passed the ATirBuTE
assessment. The travel plan should be secured, enforced, monitored and reviewed as part of the
5106 agreement. A Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) (or inclusion in the Travel Plan) and a
Construction and Logistics Plan (CLP) have been prepared, and updated versions will need to be
secured via condition. The CLP will need to take into account any potential works which may take
place as part of the Bow Vision Programme during the construction programme.
Other matters
77
The submitted drawings show an area to be used as carriageway which is approximately 7
metres wide. This width is welcomed, which would allow two buses to pass or wait in this area,
should two-way bus working be required once a bridge is delivered (however wide the bridge will
be), and this area should also be designed for ease of use by cyclists travelling in both directions
across the bridge regardless of the operation of buses.
78
The precise details of bus routeings and frequencies would be subject to further work,
budget constraints and public consultation, but would not be expected to be excessive nor
impact on the public realm proposals of the site, subject to clarifying the future surface
treatment. If the part of the site forming the carriageway is to remain as private highway rather
than being adopted, Ttl would need to secure rights of access through the site via a lease.
Summary
79
In order to comply with the transport policies of the London Plan the following is sought:
•
Confirmation that cycle facilities will comply with relevant standards
•
Car Parking Management Plan, Blue Badge and EVCP provision, Delivery and Servicing
Plan and Construction Logistics Plan should be secured via condition
page 13
•
Full Travel Plan secured by section 106 agreement
•
Financial contributions towards a cycle hire docking station (and a safeguarded site),
local connectivity and permeability improvements in the Pudding Mill Lane area
towards a bus I pedestrian I cycle bridge and the Bow Vision Programme.
•
Payment of the Mayors Community Infrastructure Levy.
80
These matters should be fully addressed before the application is referred back to the
Mayor at Stage 2.
Local planning authority's position
81
This is not known at this stage.
Legal considerations
82
Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of
London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a
statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,
and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherWise by the Mayor, the London Legacy
Development Corporation must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it
subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may
decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the London Legacy
Development Corporation under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application. There is no
obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible
direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor's statement and comments.
Financial considerations
83
There are no financial considerations at this stage.
Conclusion
84
London Plan policies on proposed mix of uses, the 2012 Games and their Legacy, housing
and affordable housing, urban design, inclusive design, sustainable development, energy and
transport are relevant to this application. On balance, the application does not comply with the
London Plan, but the suggested changes might remedy these deficiencies, and could possibly
lead to it becoming compliant with the London Plan:
•
Mix of uses- The proposed mix of uses is supported.
•
The 2012 Games and their Legacy- The application complies with the London Plan.
•
Housing - The principle of introducing residential is supported in strategic planning terms
and complies with the London Plan. However, evidence is needed to demonstrate that the
maximum reasonable level of affordable housing would be provided, additional efforts made
to increase the proposed level of family housing, the proportion of north facing single aspect
units reduced, and the proposed approach to children's play space clarified.
•
Urban design -The approach to urban design is supported in strategic planning terms but
the maters set out above should be fully addressed.
•
Inclusive design - The Inclusive design concerns identified In this report should be fully
addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor at Stage 2 to demonstrate
full compliance with the London Plan.
page 14
•
Sustainable development and energy -The detailed energy issues identified in this
report should be fully addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor at
Stage 2 to demonstrate full compliance with the London Plan.
•
Transport - The transport concerns identified in this report should be fully addressed
before the application is referred back to the Mayor at Stage 2 to demonstrate full
compliance with the London Plan.
for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development and Projects)
Colin Wilson. Senior Manager - Development and Projects
020 7983 4783 email [email protected]
Justin Carr. Strategic Planning Manager (Development Dedsions)
020 7983 4895 email [email protected]
Lyndon Fothergill. Prindpal Strategic Planner (Case Officer)
020 7983 4512 emaillyndon.fo11wgilL@ Io.ruJ~n,gn.ll..uk
page 15
Deirdra Armsby
Head of Planning and Development Commissioning
Anthony Hollingsworth
Director of Planning Policy & Decisions
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place
Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ
Development Control
st
1 Floor, West Wing
Newham Dockside
1000 Dockside Road
London
E16 2QU
Ask for:
Tel:
Date:
Deirdra Armsby
0208 430 2000
11 December 2014
Dear Mr Hollingsworth,
Application No:
14/00422/FUL
Location:
Land at Marshgate Lane, Pudding Mill, Stratford, London E15
2NH
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7 No. three storey
townhouses and 7 No. mixed use buildings ranging from 2 to 12
storeys in height, comprising 2,928m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA)
of B1 (business) floorspace and 268 flats, together with
basement, access, servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant,
open space and landscaping.
Thank you for consulting the London Borough of Newham. On behalf of the
Council, I am writing to support the abovementioned application and request
that the following comments are taken into account in the determination of the
application:
Principle of Development
The principle of mixed use with the allocation of approximately 3000 sq. m. of
commercial floorspace is supported and aligns with the Council’s vision of
providing jobs and homes. Therefore there are no principle policy objections
to the proposed use of the site. The Council is however concerned in respect
of the proposed mix of units within the scheme and specifically the level of
three bedroom family units proposed (31% provision) which is less than the
39% required by Policy H1 of the Council’s Core Strategy. Newham restates
that a review mechanism may be necessary to address this shortfall and
would wish that any monies raised via a review mechanism be directed to the
provision of family social rented accommodation.
Design / External Appearance / Scale & Massing
It is proposed that Building 1 shall be 12 storeys in height. Development Plan
policy requires the highest standards of architecture and materials, including
sustainable design and construction practices (Policy 7.7 of the London Plan
refers). Policy 7.7(c) states that tall buildings should relate well to the form,
proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding buildings, urban
grain and public realm.
In terms of the design and external appearance of the proposed development,
the Council considers that this scheme has benefited from the rigorous design
review process, which comprised two meetings of the Quality Review Panel
and welcomes the way in which the applicant and architect have positively
responded to the comments raised. It is considered that the proposed
development represents a considerable improvement to the early design
proposals for this scheme that represented a much more bulky and
overbearing form in terms its height and massing. The design response to
lower Building 1 from 16 storeys to 12 storeys is welcomed but it is a concern
for the Council that this building should be lower in height. Previous Council
advice was to lower the built form and as it steps away from Stratford High
Street.
It is considered that the proposed elevational treatment is particularly
successful, and the Council welcome the large balconies and terraces which
punctuate and help enliven the facades of the residential buildings. However,
notwithstanding this, the quality of the detailing and the materiality of the
development will be critical to the overall success of the scheme but the
precedent images do inspire confidence as to the proposed materiality and
treatments.
Should the LLDC be minded to grant planning permission for the proposal,
robust conditions will be necessary to ensure the design quality shown within
the application submission is followed through to the build-out of the
development. Similarly, the Council would also recommend a clause within
the Section 106 Agreement to retain the services of the Architect (Squire and
Partners) to deal with the approval of details and oversee the build out of the
development on site.
The internal arrangement of the proposed accommodation is considered to be
well considered, and will result in the majority of the units having a dual
aspect. It would appear that all of the units would meet minimum space
standards, but would request that the LLDC ensure the application proposals
are compliant in this regard.
Taking into account the high quality design and internal layout of the proposed
development, it is considered that the overall height and massing of Buildings
2-7 is acceptable in townscape terms. I hope the above response is of
assistance.
Affordable Housing / S106
This level of affordable housing is below the level set out in Newham’s Core
Strategy in Paragraph 6.126, that we aim to achieve 35%-50% affordable
housing onsite.
This target is subject to viability and site specific circumstances. On this site
we see no compelling reason why 35%-50% can not be delivered.
We would expect the LLDC to carry out a robust review of the scheme’s
viability and if justified to ensure that the level of onsite affordable housing is
delivered.
If there is uncertainty around some of the elements of the scheme’s viability,
that may make the lower offer acceptable, we would insist that a review
mechanism is put in place that captures the reality of rising residential values
in this area. Newham would wish that any monies raised via a review
mechanism be directed to the provision of family social rented
accommodation.
Yours sincerely,
Deirdra Armsby
Head of Planning and Development Commissioning
Appendix 4
Squire and Partners
Marshgate
Response to LLDC Local Plan
10th February 2015
Introduction
Squire and Partners
- An award winning architects’ practice founded in 1976
- Have designed numerous buildings on key sites in London and abroad
- Approach to architecture is based on a commitment to contemporary design and detailing within
a traditional framework of street patterns, scale and proportions.
- Emphasis is focused on responding to context; sourcing the finest building materials and delivering a
meticulously detailed product.
- Previous residential projects that have been completed include the following:
Creekside Village
Berwick Street
Royal Victoria Docks
Wider Pudding Mill Site Context
WESTFIELD
CENTRE
STRATFORD
PARK
CENTRE
OLYMPIC
STADIUM
2.1.1
The site is located within the London Borough of Newham (LBN)
the
within to
theMarshgate
jurasdiction
of London
Legacy
The site
is application
immediatelylies
adjacent
Lane
to its west,
Bow Back River to
the south
and City Mill
River to the
east. Itwho
is approximately
390m
southeast of the
Development
Corporation
(LLDC)
is therefore the
determining
Olympic
Park and
of Stratford
High
Street (A118).adjacent to
authority
for50m
the north
application.
The site
is immediately
The location of the site means that it forms a gateway between the Olympic Park
Marshgate Lane to its west, Bow Back River to the south and City
and the regeneration area of Sugar House Lane.
Mill
to the
the Pudding
east. It isMill
approximately
390mpreviously
southeastallocated
of the as
The site
liesRiver
within
area of Stratford,
industrial
land but
since
re-designated
for mixed
including
Olympic
Parkhas
and
50mbeen
north
of Stratford High
Streetuses
(A118).
The
housing.
location of the site means that it forms a gateway between the
The site is not in a Conservation Area. The existing site is composed of a series of
Olympic
Parkthat
and are
theapproximately
regeneration area
Sugar House Lane.
industrial
buildings
50%of
vacant.
The site lies between several proposed developments which have either gained
planning
are inthe
thePudding
process Mill
of applying
for Planning
Consent. These
2.1.2
Theconsent
site liesorwithin
area of Stratford,
previously
include the following:
allocated as industrial land but has since been re-designated for
68 - 70 High Street Stratford
uses including
housing.
Legacymixed
Communities
Scheme,
of which includes a parcel of land falling within the
Pudding Mill area, known as PDZ8
Cook’sThe
Road
2.1.3
site is not in a Conservation Area. The existing site
These adjacent sites within the Pudding Mill ‘Island’ are largely unoccupied by
is
composed
of uses.
a series of industrial buildings that are
existing buildings and
approximately
50% exists
vacant.
The context
that currently
consists of existing buildings that line the
opposite side of the Bow Back River to the North and East of the site. These
buildings are primarily residential, with smaller elements of commercial
2.1.4 The site lies between several proposed developments which have
floorspace use lining the ground floor level along Stratford High Street.
either gained planning consent or are in the process of applying
for Planning Consent. These include the following:
ST
RA
TF
OR
D
HI
GH
ST
RE
ET
GRE
ENW
AY
Site Location and Context
between Marshgate Lane and the Bow Back River, however
SHOPPING
VICTORIA
2.1
68 - 70 High Street Stratford
Legacy Communities Scheme, of which includes a parcel of land
falling within the Pudding Mill area, known as PDZ8
BOW
INTERCHANGE
Cook’s Road
These adjacent sites within the Pudding Mill ‘Island’ are largely
unoccupied by existing buildings and uses.
D
ROA
BOW
2.1.5
The context that currently exists consists of existing buildings
that line the opposite side of the Bow Back River to the North and
BROMLEY-BY-BOW
East of the site. These buildings are primarily residential, with
smaller elements of commercial êoorspace use lining the ground
êoor level along Stratford High Street.
Aerial photograph of the site and its’ relationship with the wider context
The Marshgate Site - Context
Marshgate in the context of outline Approval PDZ8, The Legacy Communities Scheme
MARSHGATE
SITE
LCS consented areas
PDZ8 development zone, approved as part of Legacy Communities Scheme outline planning permission Ref 11/90621/OUTODA, approved 28/09/2012
Marshgate in the context of outline approval PDZ8, the Legacy Communities Scheme (2)
2.8
Scale, Character and Materials of Emerging Context
In order to respond to the adjacent consented proposals, Squire and
Partners have undertaken detailed analysis of those proposals. A
summary of the outcome of that analysis is following:
2.8.1
orth
PDZ8 Outline Planning Consent
er D
y
ensit
Low
The emerging context within the PDZ8 consent and along Stratford
N
ards
Tow
Ot
te
r
Development Parcel 8.1:
Cl
os
e
Low Density
High Street is likely to provide up to 1,660 new residential units and
up to 39,013m2 of Flexible Employment space. Densities within the
Pudd
context vary from 450-650 HR/Ha within the least dense part of the
ing M
PDZ8 proposal to 1217 HR/Ha within the proposal for 68-70 High
Street Stratford. While the consent is for Outline Permission only, the
ill La
accompanying Design Code for PDZ8 clearly describes the design
Development Parcel 8.3.2:
MARSHGATE
e
Uses in PDZ8 will be a mix of residential, employment, retail and
Lan
Use and Amount
ate
Medium Density
g
rsh
Development Parcel 8.2:
Ma
ne
aspirations for the neightbourhood:
SITE
High Density
social infrastructure, with retail located along Marshgate Lane.
Layout
Parcels within the existing street network will be further subdivided
to increase the permeability through the neighbourhood and
ck
introduce open spaces between between the buildings. Building
Lo
frontages to streets should be parallel to one another.
Scale and Massing
Streets will follow a maximum 1:1 proportion of corridor width to
height and maximum heights range from 16m to 37m above ground
68-70
level. Neighbourhood open space shall be to a maximum of 2:1
High Street Stratford
width:height of adjacent buildings.
Landscape
Doorstep play space will be well-defined by a fence and/or
wB
eck
Bo
er
RIv
tral
Cen
se
Hou
Hig
ord
atf
Str
tertiary streets should be between 12 and 16m wide.
Appearance
River fronts shall have facades with generous openings that address
the waterfront. Buildings along Marshgate and Pudding Mill
entrances that overlook the public realm.
Squire and Partners interpretation of the proposed densities within the consented PDZ8 Masterplan
et
tre
hS
vegetation. Marshgate Lane should be between 15 and 18m wide and
Lanes shall be urban in character with openings and ground floor
(Consented proposal)
ing
ild
Bu
Marshgate in the context of outline approval PDZ8, the Legacy Communities Scheme (3)
Adjoining the Marshgate Business Centre Site, Pudding Mill
Lane and Marshgate Lane is identified for a “marker
building”.
Marshgate in the context of approved adjoining schemes
3
s
ey
or
St
eys
tor
8S
reys
4 Sto
8S
ate
g
rsh
Ma
ne
ill La
ing M
eys
tor
Pudd
11 Storeys
Lan
e
MARSHGATE
SITE
11 Storeys
8 Storeys
18 Storeys
eys
tor
8S
ys
6 Store
w
Bo
ck
Be
er
RIv
ys
tore
10 S
eys
tor
9S
at
Str
Squire and Partners interpretations of the maximum building envelopes of the consented PDZ8 Land Parcel
et
tre
hS
ig
dH
for
G M
IL
L LA
N
E
Existing and proposed height diagrams
LANE
DIN
BULLMAN SITE
MARSH
CENTRAL HOUSE
MARSHGATE
BUSINESS
CENTRE
G AT E
BOW B
ACK
ONE STRATFORD
OTTER
CLOSE
STRATFORD
HALO
BLAKER ROAD
PUD
BOW
SUB-STATION
WA
TER
WO
RKS
R IV E R
68 - 70
HIGH STREET
ST
EE
H STR
R D H IG
R AT F O
RICK ROBERTS
SITE
T
LAN
E
Existing height diagram
G M
ILL
1 Storey
BOW B
ACK
4 Storeys
5 Storeys
PROPOSED
COMBINED
MARSHGATE
SITE
TE
6 Storeys
BLAKER ROAD
GA
MARSH
3 Storeys
OTTER
CLOSE
LANE
BOW
SUB-STATION
PUD
DIN
2 Storeys
7 Storeys
W
R
AT E
WO
8 Storeys
RKS
9 Storeys
10 Storeys +
R IV E R
Site Boundary
ONE STRATFORD
CENTRAL HOUSE
68 - 70
HIGH STREET
STRA
Proposed height diagram (including consented maximum heights of emerging context
TREE
H IG H S
TFORD
T
RICK ROBERTS
SITE
Surrounding scale, character and materials (1)
2.9.2
Character
The buildings in the surrounding area have no recognisable group
characteristics. Buildings have been built over a wide time range
and therefore the style of buildings is very varied. The few industrial
buildings that remain are primarily 20th Century industrial buildings
that line Cooks Road.
2.9.3
Materials
Buildings along Stratford High Street are particularly varied in
materiality and consist of a range of brick, metal and glass clad
buildings.
A post-industrial theme may be the only shared theme within the
area, since the majority of buildings that have been developed
in recent years have been on former industrial sites. A variety of
bricks have been used in the neighbouring buildings and this may
be considered reminiscent of the historic warehouses that once
dominated the area. Brick was a durable and robust material
appropriate to the heavy industries that were contained within the
buildings.
Central House
Otter Close
One Stratford
Lock Keeper’s Cottage
Surrounding scale, character and materials (2)
2.9
2.9.1
Surrounding Scale, Character and Materials
Scale
Since a large area of context remains entirely vacant, the majority of
the existing context consists of the buildings that line Stratford High
Street.
Prior to the development of new larger scale buildings along
Stratford High Street in the last decade, the High Street followed a
pattern of smaller scale development that was largely composed of
two to three storey terraced developments, a few estates with 3 – 4
storey apartment buildings and a number of 20 storey tower blocks.
The area was largely occupied by industrial uses.
In the last decade a number of new buildings have been introduced
along Stratford High Street. These buildings have been built under
the planning guidance of the Stratford Metropolitan Masterplan
which sets a benchmark height of 8 storeys and suggests a series
of local and district ‘landmark buildings’ of between 16 and 24
storeys high. These new towers have been strategically located
68 - 70 High Street Stratford
at prominent intersections of roads and river in order to visually
emphasize significant routes. Examples of these ‘local landmark
buildings’ include the Stratford Halo which is 43 storeys high and at
the intersection of the ‘Greenway’ and Stratford High Street and One
Stratford High Street which is 27 storeys high and at the intersection
of Cooks Road and Stratford High Street.
Another ‘local landmark buildings’ that is consented very close to
the site is 68-70 High Street Stratford (currently the Porsche Garage)
which will incorporate an 18 storey tower that marks the proposed
junction of the Marshgate Lane Link Route with Stratford High
Street. This building will sit directly opposite the proposed site and
will be read in conjunction with the proposal for the Marshgate site
on approach from Stratford High Street. It is understood that this
permission is due to be implemented shortly.
Stratford Halo
Rick Roberts Site
Surrounding scale, character and materials (3)
Cluster of buildings overlooking Three Mills River and the site
Existing Marshgate Business Centre Buildings
(including Stratford Halo)
Lock Building - view East along Stratford High Street
Lock Building - view across river lock
Marshgate Site – Design Approach
Marshgate Site – Design Approach
The Marshgate Site – Design Approach
Townscape Significance
A strategic bus link route has been safeguarded within the proposal – ‘Marshgate Link Route’. This will
facilitate greater permeability through the site by both vehicles and pedestrians. Permeability will be
increased further by the provision of a public towpath route along the meander of the Bow Back River and a
diagonal route that connects the ‘Marshgate Link Route’ to a new public Play Park on the waters edge. A
hierarchy of streets and landscapes have been provided with a clear division of public and private space.
Emerging Context
Building heights within the proposal have been developed to respect the various existing and emerging
context. This has resulted in a diversity of building types of varied footprint and height. The scale of each
building relates to the scale of streetscape/ landscape at which it is located.
Existing Character
The proposal takes its’ cue from the industrial heritage of the site and incorporates a high quality palette of
brick, metal and glass.
Appendix 5
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Appendix 5:
Schedule of suggested Local Plan amendments
Matter 1: Legal and Procedural
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Para 1.2,
Page 5
As the Local Planning Authority for its area, the Legacy Corporation is
required to prepare a Local Plan. The Local Plan sets out the Legacy
Corporation’s strategy for the sustainable development of its area as a
whole, including the general amount, type and location of new
development it considers could take place and the policies to which
applications for planning permission should generally conform in order to
meet these objectives, demonstrated through a robust evidence base. Its
planning powers, including preparing and implementing the Local Plan,
represent one part of the Legacy Corporation’s role as a development
corporation. Alongside the development of its own land and working with
its partners, including the local communities, the four Boroughs,
landowners and developers, it will use its wide-ranging powers to
implement projects and bring about change that will meet the
established purpose of creating a lasting legacy from the 2012 Games
and supporting and promoting the aims of convergence.
We have previously provided comments on the Local Plan, and the
importance of demonstrating a robust evidence base that meet the Tests
of Soundness (Para. 182 of the NPPF), to ensure the plan is: (1) Positively
prepared and based on objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements; (2) Justified and the most appropriate
strategy considering reasonable alternatives; (3) Effective and deliverable
over the plan period; and (4) consistent with national policy.
Yes
Yes
Suggest
amended
wording to
recognise
required
flexibility (Test
3)
We recommend the wording in para. 1.2 is revised and updated to
reflect this to allow for changing circumstances and appropriate flexibility
over the plan period.
Figure 2,
Page 11
We suggest 24,000 new homes target is updated in line with the relevant
evidence base for housing allocations, to ensure compliancy with the
London Plan. The figure should also be updated to address any
discrepancies across the Plan.
This is to ensure the plan is consistent with regional policy in line with Test
of Soundness 4.
Yes
Yes
Update housing
target in line to
meet Tests 1 to
4.
Objective
2, Page 41
Objective 2: Establish and maintain locally distinctive neighbourhoods
which meet housing needs, while providing excellent and easily
accessible social infrastructure.
This will mean:
• Delivering approximately at least 24,000 new homes within a range of
sizes and tenures that meet local and market demands
• Ensuring homes are accessible to and affordable for a broad spectrum
of the community, and meet specialist accommodation requirements
• The delivery of at least four new primary schools and one new
secondary school
• The delivery and maintenance of sufficient new health and general
community meeting places, including space suitable for faith use.
We previously commented on the draft of the Local Plan in December
2013, stating that the Marshgate Business Centre had not been included
within the list of allocated within Appendix 8 of the Mayor’s Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment (the draft housing target of 14,711
from 2015 to 2025, or 1,471 homes per year), nor the estimates of housing
delivery within the Draft Local Plan (December 2013) appendix table. We
stated that the additional capacity for our site should be included within
the pipeline supply in line with our timescales for delivery, within the
housing delivery appendix table in your draft plan, for 250 – 350 homes
from 2015.
Yes
Yes
Suggest
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
We note in LLDC’s Consultation Report, it agreed to include our allocation
within the tabled housing delivery appendix. However, ‘Table 13 Remaining Capacity’ on Page 236 has not been updated to reflect the
timescales for delivery for Marshgate Business Centre, and in fact includes
a reduction in housing numbers without planning permission over the plan
period, from 1,502 homes in the December 2013 version of the Local Plan,
to 1,206 homes within the revised draft. This is not in line with the
timescales for delivery within Site Allocation SA4.3.
We would re-iterate that the Housing Allocation should be checked for
accuracy prior to submission, and our site should be included as being
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
delivered from 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 with a capacity of 250-350 new
homes.
We would also set out that it is important the evidence base and target is
accurate to meet Tests of Soundness 1 (based on objectively assessed
development) and 2 (justified and the most appropriate strategy). This is
particularly important as the plan is struggling to meet its five per cent
buffer on a rolling five-year basis beyond the first five years of the plan, as
set out in Para. 5.3 of the Draft Plan.
Test 4 requires compliancy with the London Plan and national policy. In
this respect, the LLDC Local Plan should reflect the new priority focus of
housing in the Further Alterations to the London Plan., within Table 13
“Remaining Capacity” of Appendix 2.
The text and housing allocations should be updated where relevant
including revisions to the evidence base, to ensure the plan is: (1)
Positively prepared and based on objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements; (2) Justified and the most appropriate
strategy considering reasonable alternatives; (3) Effective and deliverable
over the plan period; and (4) consistent with national policy.
Site
Allocation
SA4.2,
Page 218
Site Allocation SA4.3: Pudding Mill
A new medium-density, mixed-use area, including a significant and
diverse element of new and replacement business floorspace, including
spaces suitable for small- and
medium-sized businesses; a new Local Centre adjacent to Pudding Mill
Lane DLR Station and Pudding Mill Lane; new homes including a
significant element of family housing; new Local Open Space, Play space
and public realm. Cumulatively across the Pudding Mill Site Allocation, 25
per cent non-residential floorspace should be achieved optimised where
demonstrated to be viable and where there is an identified need, with a
predominantly industrial
floorspace use mix in the area to the west of Cooks Road and around the
Crossrail portal.
Development principles
• Proposals for tall buildings development above 21 metres above
ground level will only be acceptable subject to the provisions of Policy
BN.10, with some taller elements in the Local Centre
• Non-residential uses should be focused along a new central east-west
street
• The form of development should allow for improved east-west
connections through the site
• Provision should be made for safeguarding key connections, including
new bus/cycle/pedestrian connection from Stratford High Street to
Marshgate Lane and a new pedestrian/cycle connection from Wrexham
Road over the A12 and River Lea
• Land should be safeguarded Safeguarding of land for DLR North Route
Double Tracking phase 2.
• Regard will need to be had to not prejudicing the operation of the
safeguarded rail freight site to the west (for example by ensuring that
noise sensitive uses are located away from the site).
Supporting Development principles
•Landowners will need to work together to bring forward comprehensive
schemes that are capable of achieving the ambitions for development of
The Plan fails to meet Tests of Soundness 2, 3 and 4 as it is too stringent to
be applied over the plan period; fails to comply with national and
regional policy and Borough policy; fails to be underpinned by an
appropriate evidence base.
No, as the plan
has not been
revised in
accordance
with our
previous
comments.
No, as the plan
has not been
revised in
accordance
with our
previous
comments.
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
the site allocation and delivering identified infrastructure needed for the
site as a whole.
• Open Space/playspace needs to be provided alongside development
and located within pockets across the site
• A new Local Centre should be brought forward adjacent to Pudding
Mill DLR Station
• A significant proportion of family homes should be provided
• It would be appropriate to re-align Barbers Road to provide a dual
fronted street and screening to the Crossrail site
• Other Industrial Location designation maintained along the western
edge to form a buffer to A12 (see Policy B.1)
Policy B.1
and
supporting
text, Page
23
Phasing and implementation
• Delivery on site from 2015 onwards
• Lack of existing residential uses, amenity and limited connectivity will
require early phases to consider carefully the provision of amenity and
access
• Consideration of the transition to residential use is required to avoid
poor adjacencies between retained industrial uses and residential
redevelopment
• Strategic requirement to enhance the north-south connections
between the Local Centre adjacent to Pudding Mill DLR Station, across to
Sugar House Lane and south-west to Bromley-by-Bow District Centre. An
additional crossing is identified to allow an enhanced bus, pedestrian and
cycle route
• The non-residential employment uses are concentrated on the eastwest street and special-use sites to allow the incremental growth of
employment space with each development parcel.
Policy B.1: Location and maintenance of employment uses
B Use Classes shall be focussed according to type within the Employment
Clusters shown in Table 2 and where identified within the Centres within
Table 3. The employment function for each cluster and employment land
outside the clusters shall be protected and developed through:
1. Office uses should be located within the centres and an impacts
assessment required where B1a office accommodation over 2,500 sqm is
proposed outside Stratford Metropolitan Centre Boundary.
2. Ensuring new provision is flexible and viable, meeting the needs of a
wide range of end users, contains adequate access and servicing and
has no conflict with immediate uses
3. Safeguarding land and buildings within Strategic Industrial Locations
(SIL) for the balance of B Use Classes identified within Table 2 in density
and floorspace
4. Only allowing proposals providing equivalent use, in either job densities
or and floorspace, which maintain the existing balance of uses identified
within Table 2 and meeting needs of small- and medium-sized businesses
within the Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) and Other Industrial
Locations (OIL)
5. Proposals on employment land outside the clusters and where new
uses are proposed within the OILs shall:
a) Maintain or re-provide equivalent industrial floorspace or job numbers
within B2/B8 Use Classes subject to location; or
b) Maintain or re-provide equivalent employment floorspace or job
numbers within B1 Use Classes or significantly increase job densities within
We re-iterate that this policy should recognise that each of the existing
employment sites within the LLDC varies in quality and number of people
employed and should recognise changing viability considerations over
the plan period, to meet test of soundness 3 set within paragraph 182 of
the NPPF and in line with J2 of Newham’s Core Strategy.
From reviewing planning approvals across the Stratford City and LLDC
area it is understood that specific site viability circumstances have been
taken into account for the re-provision of employment uses and where
more stringent policy may have prevented sites coming forward, many of
these sites have now been delivered. LBN’s Core Strategy Policy J2 has
allowed for this level of flexibility without resulting in an adverse impact on
the provision of employment floorspace and in particular, allowing
development to come forward where there is a loss of floorspace but
improvement on the quality of jobs, and/ or job numbers alongside other
benefits such as housing, an increasing priority within the Further
Alterations to the London Plan (2014).
These amendments are required to meet all of the Tests of Soundness.
No, as the
wording has
not been
amended in
line with our
comments.
No, as the
wording has
not been
amended in
line with our
comments.
Suggest
amended
wording to allow
for increased
flexibility to
meet all of the
Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
B Use Classes
Proposals, including conversions, shall also be considered against:
c) Proximity of incompatible uses to the existing and proposed use;
d) The potential reuse of buildings of value for employment;
e) Re-location strategies showing how existing businesses can be suitably
accommodated;
f) Viability appraisal demonstrating suitability of maintaining or reproviding industrial or employment within the location;
g) Marketing strategies for two immediately preceding years showing
attempts to market the property for employment uses; and
h) Other overriding factors potentially inhibiting the continuation of
employment use.
4.7 The diversity of the economic offer and its ability to transform and
grow is a key feature of and a major factor in the potential of the area.
The range of employment sectors operating across the area is
remarkable, providing the key conditions for cultural and creative uses,
makers and other manufacturers to flourish while heavier industries, office,
retail and leisure uses provide for broader employment needs.
4.8 Strengthening the foundations of creative and cultural industries
together with new economic uses at Hackney Wick and Fish Island will
provide a crucial environment for the stimulation of growth, while heavier
industries and transportation uses largely towards the south of the area
and within the employment clusters provide for more established
employment requirements. The economic profile in and around Stratford
will be diverse, where office development will form much of the B Use
Class development. Opportunities for research and development, such
as in particular around Pudding Mill, will seek to embrace technologies to
complete the economic profile of the area where viable. This
transformation depends on seizing these opportunities. The need to
promote the area as a new economic hub for east London while
maintaining its current economic base, and enabling each of these
sectors to build on their own strengths, has driven the economic strategy
set out within this section and the Local Plan as a whole. This strategy will
preserve the economic character which makes the area unique, while
building on opportunities for new business types to be introduced and
expand.
Policy application
4.12 For the purposes of this policy, employment is defined as the B Use
Classes, but in some cases, within the Centres, where employment density
is greater than B Use Classes and contributes towards the wider role and
function of the area, uses within A and D Use Classes may be considered
to be providing an employment function. The applicability of this shall be
assessed on a case-by-case basis, and should be read in conjunction
with Policy B.2. This policy specifically includes yardspace within the
definition of industrial floorspace.
Clusters
4.13 The boundaries of each of the employment cluster designations are
shown on the Proposals Map. Table 2 makes clear what balance of uses
and form of development will be suitable within each location. The
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Workspace 14
existing balance of floorspace and density will be maintained. Distinctions
between the LSIS and OILs follow the London Plan Land for Industry and
Transport SPG terminology whereby the Other Industrial Locations are
most susceptible to change. Where acceptable change identified within
the OILs is proposed, Bullet points 5 (c) and (d) will be applied. The
Legacy Corporation will support and promote measures to improve
employment clusters through Section 106 Agreements.10 Where identified
within Table 2, residential will be appropriate when the employmentgenerating potential and industrial capacity are not compromised and
amenity and servicing issues have been addressed.
Outside Clusters
4.14 The intention of the policy is to maintain or where relevant rationalise
and improve the quality and function of employment outside the clusters
as it plays a pivotal role in the economic performance of the area. Use
Classes and, in some cases, locational circumstances will determine
whether 5 (a) or (b) applies. Bullet points (c) and (d) are other
considerations which shall be taken into account, including how the
existing and the proposed use integrates or conflicts with the surrounding
area or the development proposed within this Local Plan, and where the
reuse of buildings of value shall be considered positively. Bullet points
(e) to (h) apply where a loss of employment, including through
conversion, is proposed. Where a job density approach is applied,
densities should either be above average for the B Use Classes where
existing job density is low, or significantly increase densities from existing
levels, whichever is the greater. Where density is applicable, the Any
additional jobs created should meet local requirements
4.15 Under Bullet 5 (a), where the premises are within, or most recent
permanent use is within, B2/B8 industrial uses, equivalent floorspace or job
numbers shall be maintained or re-provided. The only exceptions shall be
where the current use is clearly and demonstrably in direct conflict with its
immediate surroundings, or where the current use is clearly incompatible
with mixed-use development proposed within this Local Plan for the
specific site, including at Hackney Wick/Fish Island. In these
circumstances the equivalent employment floorspace or job numbers to
be re-provided should be in the form of workshops which are compatible
with mixed-use development, including within B2 Use Classes, in the first
instance; or proposals should significantly increase job density within B
Use Classes, appropriate to location, with proven ability to let. This will
ensure redevelopment proposals enable existing businesses which
contribute to the economic variety of the area to remain. In the case of
Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre, for example, reconfiguration of
floorspace for employment uses (B1 and B2 Use Classes) compatible with
the mixed-use development proposed will be acceptable. Sub Area 1
policies also provide additional guidance on where a floorspace or job
density approach will be applied.
4.16 Bullet point 5 (b) will apply for proposals relating to current B1 Use
Class employment. As B1 Use Classes are generally compatible with
mixed-use development, any re-development proposals of B1 floorspace
should maintain equivalent B Use Class employment floorspace or job
numbers significantly increase job density within the B Use Classes. A job
density approach will also be applied for proposals at Leyton Road North
and the site at Eastway, Osbourne Road, which have been released from
designation.
4.17 Only where a convincing case for a loss of employment floorspace
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
or density, or job numbers, including through conversion, is made through
Bullet points (c) to (h) of this policy shall an exception be made. This
should include:
• Re-location strategies demonstrating no negative financial implications
for existing businesses
and potential for relocation to suitable premises nearby at similar rates
• Marketing strategy evidence demonstrating a lack of demand for all
appropriate forms of employment uses and site configurations through
marketing at a reasonable rate for the area, within appropriate forums,
for at least two years prior to the submission of the proposal
• Viability appraisals assessing the suitability of location, quality, condition,
character and function, and ability of a business to thrive under such
circumstances; suitability of the premises for conversion to any
employment use; the potential costs and configurations for
improvements; and the ability to attract market rates for the area
• The existence of other overriding factors which could potentially inhibit
the ability to provide equivalent employment on the site in the future,
such as building configuration or conversely the presence of premature
lease-termination issues.
Design
4.18 New employment floorspace should be designed flexibly to maximise
potential uses and take-up, including the way the units are accessed and
managed. Mixed-use developments should be designed to maximise the
forms and types of employment uses which can be incorporated into the
development, including how B1 and some forms of B2 Use Classes can be
compatible with mixed-use development through good design, including
vertical and horizontal integration. Where existing businesses are capable
of taking up the space proposed through mixed-use redevelopment,
temporary re-location strategies shall be sought as described in
paragraph 4.17 to enable these businesses to remain within the area for
the long term. On a case-by-case basis proposals requiring planning
permission involving a change of use to B1 will be protected from future
change to residential through conditions.
Matter 2: Business Growth, Jobs & Lifelong Learning
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Section 4,
Objective
1
Objective 1: Increase the prosperity of east London through growth in
business, employment generating uses and quality jobs with an emphasis
on cultural and creative sectors, promotion as a visitor and tourist
destination and high-quality lifelong learning opportunities.
We generally support the thrust of Objective 1 in its general ambitions to
create jobs, business and promote the area as a visitor and tourist
destination across the LLDC area as a whole. However, it is important that
an evidence based approach is taken for the retention/ release of
employment land (Test of Soundness 2) that takes account of flexibility
over the plan period and its changing viability circumstances (Test of
Soundness 3) (NPPF, para. 182) and is based on objectively assessed
development and infrastructure requirements (Test 1).
No, as the
wording has
not been
amended in
line with our
comments.
No, as the
wording has not
been amended
in line with our
comments.
Suggest
amended
wording to
allow for
increased
flexibility to
meet all of the
Tests of
Soundness.
This will mean:
-
An internationally focused office and business quarter established
around the Metropolitan Centre at Stratford and a technologyand media-focused business hub at Here East
-
A centre of cultural and sporting excellence based around the
retained Games venues and at Stratford Waterfront
-
Established centres for town centre and business uses at Stratford,
The LLDC Employment Land Review (ELR) (May 2014), undertaken by URS,
sets out that based on demand growth, it would be appropriate to
release between 0.4 and 6.2 ha of industrial land and to promote the
provision of between 17,100 sqm and 59,500 sqm of office type
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Hackney Wick, Bromley-by-Bow, East Village and Pudding Mill
-
Diversity of employment provision within business clusters, focused
around Fish Island and Sugar House Lane, and expansion in where
viable the establishment of research and development activity
focused at Pudding Mill
-
New established university campuses, including at Here East
-
Excellent access for local people and businesses to a range of
skills and training opportunities that meet their needs.
-
Recognising that such opportunities can come forward from a
range of sources and not simply through traditional employment
floorspace.
employment space (including allowance for frictional vacancy), either in
mixed-use areas and/or as part of mixed-use developments given that
demand for industrial is falling over the plan period.
The ELR calculates the demand forecasts for office as a whole rather than
broken down to the sub-area level. Overall, the ELR forecasts of
17,100sqm and 59,500sqm ‘local office’ floorspace required to 2031 is
defined as space to meet local business needs. It excludes requirements
generated/accommodated by Stratford International Quarter and Here
East, and instead places this demand within the Central London office
market.
This contradicts the approach taken within London Borough of Newham’s
Employment Land Review (EPR) in 2011, which states that: "Newham’s
close proximity to Canary Wharf and the City means its office market is
overshadowed by higher quality office accommodation in a more
preferable central London location for office occupiers”.
The London Office Policy Review (LOPR), undertaken by the Mayor of
London in 2012, identifies a potential supply of over 600,000sqm of new
office floorspace within Newham, the majority of which is concentrated
within Stratford, with employment forecasts prepared by the GLA
estimate demand for approximately 55,000sqm, a potential oversupply of
1,200%. The LOPR also questions whether there is a “strong enough
requirement for office stock given the wider pipeline supply of space
across London for demand to shift so far out of the traditional core office
markets”.
When including these sites in local demand, it is unlikely that Pudding Mill
can provide a competitive offer to occupiers compared to the Stratford
office market given it will not benefit from such strong public transport
services, fails to have the existing necessary infrastructure and will, in the
future, have a less direct relationship to any supply chains or key clients.
Policy B.1
and
supporting
text, Page
23
Policy B.1: Location and maintenance of employment uses
B Use Classes shall be focussed according to type within the Employment
Clusters shown in Table 2 and where identified within the Centres within
Table 3. The employment function for each cluster and employment land
outside the clusters shall be protected and developed through:
1. Office uses should be located within the centres and an impacts
assessment required where B1a office accommodation over 2,500 sqm is
proposed outside Stratford Metropolitan Centre Boundary.
2. Ensuring new provision is flexible and viable, meeting the needs of a
wide range of end users, contains adequate access and servicing and
has no conflict with immediate uses
3. Safeguarding land and buildings within Strategic Industrial Locations
(SIL) for the balance of B Use Classes identified within Table 2 in density
and floorspace
4. Only allowing proposals providing equivalent use, in either job densities
or and floorspace, which maintain the existing balance of uses identified
We suggest that this flexibility should allow for alternative uses to come
forward depending on relevant demand over the plan period, in
particular the new emphasis of the Draft London Plan Further Alterations
(2014) to maximise housing delivery over the plan period, particularly
within Opportunity Areas.
We re-iterate that this policy should recognise that each of the existing
employment sites within the LLDC varies in quality and number of people
employed and should recognise changing viability considerations over
the plan period, to meet test of soundness 3 set within paragraph 182 of
the NPPF and in line with J2 of Newham’s Core Strategy.
From reviewing planning approvals across the Stratford City and LLDC
area it is understood that specific site viability circumstances have been
taken into account for the re-provision of employment uses and where
more stringent policy may have prevented sites coming forward, many of
these sites have now been delivered. LBN’s Core Strategy Policy J2 has
allowed for this level of flexibility without resulting in an adverse impact on
the provision of employment floorspace and in particular, allowing
development to come forward where there is a loss of floorspace but
improvement on the quality of jobs, and/ or job numbers alongside other
benefits such as housing, an increasing priority within the Further
Alterations to the London Plan (2014).
No, as the
wording has
not been
amended in
line with our
comments.
No, as the
wording has not
been amended
in line with our
comments.
Suggest
amended
wording to
allow for
increased
flexibility to
meet all of the
Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
within Table 2 and meeting needs of small- and medium-sized businesses
within the Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) and Other Industrial
Locations (OIL)
5. Proposals on employment land outside the clusters and where new
uses are proposed within the OILs shall:
a) Maintain or re-provide equivalent industrial floorspace or job numbers
within B2/B8 Use Classes subject to location; or
b) Maintain or re-provide equivalent employment floorspace or job
numbers within B1 Use Classes or significantly increase job densities within
B Use Classes
Proposals, including conversions, shall also be considered against:
c) Proximity of incompatible uses to the existing and proposed use;
d) The potential reuse of buildings of value for employment;
e) Re-location strategies showing how existing businesses can be suitably
accommodated;
f) Viability appraisal demonstrating suitability of maintaining or reproviding industrial or employment within the location;
g) Marketing strategies for two immediately preceding years showing
attempts to market the property for employment uses; and
h) Other overriding factors potentially inhibiting the continuation of
employment use.
4.7 The diversity of the economic offer and its ability to transform and
grow is a key feature of and a major factor in the potential of the area.
The range of employment sectors operating across the area is
remarkable, providing the key conditions for cultural and creative uses,
makers and other manufacturers to flourish while heavier industries, office,
retail and leisure uses provide for broader employment needs.
4.8 Strengthening the foundations of creative and cultural industries
together with new economic uses at Hackney Wick and Fish Island will
provide a crucial environment for the stimulation of growth, while heavier
industries and transportation uses largely towards the south of the area
and within the employment clusters provide for more established
employment requirements. The economic profile in and around Stratford
will be diverse, where office development will form much of the B Use
Class development. Opportunities for research and development, such
as in particular around Pudding Mill, will seek to embrace technologies to
complete the economic profile of the area where viable. This
transformation depends on seizing these opportunities. The need to
promote the area as a new economic hub for east London while
maintaining its current economic base, and enabling each of these
sectors to build on their own strengths, has driven the economic strategy
set out within this section and the Local Plan as a whole. This strategy will
preserve the economic character which makes the area unique, while
building on opportunities for new business types to be introduced and
expand.
Policy application
4.12 For the purposes of this policy, employment is defined as the B Use
Classes, but in some cases, within the Centres, where employment density
is greater than B Use Classes and contributes towards the wider role and
LLDC Local Plan EiP
These amendments are required to meet all of the Tests of Soundness.
Workspace 14
function of the area, uses within A and D Use Classes may be considered
to be providing an employment function. The applicability of this shall be
assessed on a case-by-case basis, and should be read in conjunction
with Policy B.2. This policy specifically includes yardspace within the
definition of industrial floorspace.
Clusters
4.13 The boundaries of each of the employment cluster designations are
shown on the Proposals Map. Table 2 makes clear what balance of uses
and form of development will be suitable within each location. The
existing balance of floorspace and density will be maintained. Distinctions
between the LSIS and OILs follow the London Plan Land for Industry and
Transport SPG terminology whereby the Other Industrial Locations are
most susceptible to change. Where acceptable change identified within
the OILs is proposed, Bullet points 5 (c) and (d) will be applied. The
Legacy Corporation will support and promote measures to improve
employment clusters through Section 106 Agreements.10 Where identified
within Table 2, residential will be appropriate when the employmentgenerating potential and industrial capacity are not compromised and
amenity and servicing issues have been addressed.
Outside Clusters
4.14 The intention of the policy is to maintain or where relevant rationalise
and improve the quality and function of employment outside the clusters
as it plays a pivotal role in the economic performance of the area. Use
Classes and, in some cases, locational circumstances will determine
whether 5 (a) or (b) applies. Bullet points (c) and (d) are other
considerations which shall be taken into account, including how the
existing and the proposed use integrates or conflicts with the surrounding
area or the development proposed within this Local Plan, and where the
reuse of buildings of value shall be considered positively. Bullet points
(e) to (h) apply where a loss of employment, including through
conversion, is proposed. Where a job density approach is applied,
densities should either be above average for the B Use Classes where
existing job density is low, or significantly increase densities from existing
levels, whichever is the greater. Where density is applicable, the Any
additional jobs created should meet local requirements
4.15 Under Bullet 5 (a), where the premises are within, or most recent
permanent use is within, B2/B8 industrial uses, equivalent floorspace or job
numbers shall be maintained or re-provided. The only exceptions shall be
where the current use is clearly and demonstrably in direct conflict with its
immediate surroundings, or where the current use is clearly incompatible
with mixed-use development proposed within this Local Plan for the
specific site, including at Hackney Wick/Fish Island. In these
circumstances the equivalent employment floorspace or job numbers to
be re-provided should be in the form of workshops which are compatible
with mixed-use development, including within B2 Use Classes, in the first
instance; or proposals should significantly increase job density within B
Use Classes, appropriate to location, with proven ability to let. This will
ensure redevelopment proposals enable existing businesses which
contribute to the economic variety of the area to remain. In the case of
Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre, for example, reconfiguration of
floorspace for employment uses (B1 and B2 Use Classes) compatible with
the mixed-use development proposed will be acceptable. Sub Area 1
policies also provide additional guidance on where a floorspace or job
density approach will be applied.
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
4.16 Bullet point 5 (b) will apply for proposals relating to current B1 Use
Class employment. As B1 Use Classes are generally compatible with
mixed-use development, any re-development proposals of B1 floorspace
should maintain equivalent B Use Class employment floorspace or job
numbers significantly increase job density within the B Use Classes. A job
density approach will also be applied for proposals at Leyton Road North
and the site at Eastway, Osbourne Road, which have been released from
designation.
4.17 Only where a convincing case for a loss of employment floorspace
or density, or job numbers, including through conversion, is made through
Bullet points (c) to (h) of this policy shall an exception be made. This
should include:
• Re-location strategies demonstrating no negative financial implications
for existing businesses
and potential for relocation to suitable premises nearby at similar rates
• Marketing strategy evidence demonstrating a lack of demand for all
appropriate forms of employment uses and site configurations through
marketing at a reasonable rate for the area, within appropriate forums,
for at least two years prior to the submission of the proposal
• Viability appraisals assessing the suitability of location, quality, condition,
character and function, and ability of a business to thrive under such
circumstances; suitability of the premises for conversion to any
employment use; the potential costs and configurations for
improvements; and the ability to attract market rates for the area
• The existence of other overriding factors which could potentially inhibit
the ability to provide equivalent employment on the site in the future,
such as building configuration or conversely the presence of premature
lease-termination issues.
Policy B.4
and
supporting
text, page
34-35
Design
4.18 New employment floorspace should be designed flexibly to maximise
potential uses and take-up, including the way the units are accessed and
managed. Mixed-use developments should be designed to maximise the
forms and types of employment uses which can be incorporated into the
development, including how B1 and some forms of B2 Use Classes can be
compatible with mixed-use development through good design, including
vertical and horizontal integration. Where existing businesses are capable
of taking up the space proposed through mixed-use redevelopment,
temporary re-location strategies shall be sought as described in
paragraph 4.17 to enable these businesses to remain within the area for
the long term. On a case-by-case basis proposals requiring planning
permission involving a change of use to B1 will be protected from future
change to residential through conditions.
Policy B.4: Providing low-cost and managed workspace
Existing managed and low-cost workspace shall be retained where viable
and where it complements wider plans for the area. New managed
workspace and/or low-cost workspace will be acceptable where it:
1. Is flexible and able to meet the needs of various end users within B Use
Classes;
2. Includes an appropriate management scheme secured through
Section 106 Agreements; and
3. Does not result in a net loss of employment.
Low-cost provision will be supported and secured through Section 106
where:
This policy should be updated in line with the proposed changes
adjacent to reflect the amendments to the evidence base as set out in
comments provided for Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19, which should
allow for further flexibility over the plan period.
The inclusion of this policy is supported in so far as It recognises the
economic impacts and benefits that managed workspace can bring,
including the reference to demonstrating viability.
However, relating valuable workspace to rent is only one way of looking
at the value of the site, and where sites are cleared and employment re-
Yes
Yes
Suggest
amended
wording to
meet all of the
Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
4. Rents are up to 75 per cent of historic market rent for the previous year
for the equivalent floorspace in the same area for an equivalent B Class
Use;
5. It is secured at the current market rate for cultural or creative purposes;
6. It is subsidised to reduce the cost to the user for charitable purposes; or
7. It establishes robust management links with a registered workspace
provider.
LLDC Local Plan EiP
provided, it would be unrealistic to think that rents could be
benchmarked against previous uses.
Reasoned justification
4.28 Parts of the Legacy Corporation area have a reputation for the
provision of affordable, low-cost workspace. Managed workspace adds
to this mix by playing a key start-up function, enabling businesses to
remain for a longer period. This form of accommodation plays a crucial
role in the economic profile and expansion of the area and so it is
supported.
Policy application
4.29 Managed workspace would normally comprise a number of business
units or workspaces for independent individuals or small businesses, which
together are communally managed and provided with a range of
shared support services and facilities. Low-cost workspace can be
managed workspace, studio or unsupported independent business
space that is made available to tenants below the prevailing market rent
for that type of space, the current rate for the cultural or creative use or
subsidised at a lower user-cost. The Legacy Corporation will support the
maintenance of such workspaces where possible, and in accordance
with relevant Sub Area policies.
Policy B.6,
Page 38
4.30 In locations where a clear demand exists and a degree of flexibility
of uses is secured, proposals for new and redeveloped managed or lowcost workspace will be considered favourably, particularly as part of
mixed-use development and where the quality of existing floorspace is
enhanced. Provision should be clustered into small groups to ensure
agglomeration benefits and potential for lettings are maximised. Scheme
viability should be based upon a viable proportion being delivered of
delivery within each phase the initial phases of larger schemes. Links with
registered workspace providers will also be supported. In order to ensure
that new space is appropriately managed for the long term, proposals
should be accompanied by a Management Scheme. Proposals
replacing existing employment floorspace with managed or low-cost
workspace should re-provide equivalent floorspace or job density, subject
to Policy B.1 and be secured for the future through Section 106.
4.31 The quantum, mix of unit sizes and scheme of rent levels for low-cost
workspace will be assessed in the light of overall scheme viability with
other relevant contributions such as infrastructure and affordable housing.
Use of sliding scales will be supported where it can ensure a transition to
market level as the business matures and overall scheme viability
changes.
Policy B.6: Higher education, research and development
The Legacy Corporation will encourage the provision of facilities for
higher education, postgraduate study and research, and wider research
and development activity. Proposals for facilities within areas of mixeduse development will be required to demonstrate that they achieve a
high level of amenity for those living and working in that location. These
facilities should generally be located:
This policy should be updated in line with the proposed changes
adjacent to reflect the amendments to the evidence base as set out in
comments provided for Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19, to ensure the
plan is: (1) Positively prepared and based on objectively assessed
development and infrastructure requirements; (2) Justified and the most
appropriate strategy considering reasonable alternatives; (3) Effective
and deliverable over the plan period; and (4) consistent with national
Yes
Yes
Suggest
amended
wording to
meet all of the
Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
1. Within or at the edge of the Metropolitan Centre and such as in
Pudding Mill, or at edge of Sugar House Lane or Here East employment
clusters;
2. Within easy access to public transport hubs; and
3. Where uses are compatible and no unacceptable adverse amenity
issues arise.
LLDC Local Plan EiP
policy.
Reasoned justification
4.35 The Legacy Corporation area is host to a range of further and higher
education establishments and a distinct graduate and postgraduate
sector is emerging within the wider local economy. The enhancement of
higher education, research and development activity can contribute
towards the aims of the convergence agenda, so will be pursued. The
scale of development proposed within the area presents an opportunity
to focus postgraduate study and research activity alongside the existing
and planned institutions to complement the developing range of new
industry and business activity.
Policy application
4.36 Proposals for new higher education, postgraduate research and
wider research and development should be located where viable such
as on or adjacent to Stratford Metropolitan Centre or as part of the
employment offer within Pudding Mill. These uses will also be acceptable
on the edge of the Sugar House Lane or Here East employment clusters.
Matter 3: Housing
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Figure 2,
Page 11
We suggest 24,000 new homes target is updated in line with the relevant
evidence base for housing allocations, to ensure compliancy with the
London Plan. The figure should also be updated to address any
discrepancies across the Plan.
This is to ensure the plan is consistent with regional policy in line with Test
of Soundness 4.
Yes
Yes
Update housing
target in line to
meet Tests 1 to
4.
Objective
2, Page 41
Objective 2: Establish and maintain locally distinctive neighbourhoods
which meet housing needs, while providing excellent and easily
accessible social infrastructure.
This will mean:
• Delivering approximately at least 24,000 new homes within a range of
sizes and tenures that meet local and market demands
• Ensuring homes are accessible to and affordable for a broad spectrum
of the community, and meet specialist accommodation requirements
• The delivery of at least four new primary schools and one new
secondary school
• The delivery and maintenance of sufficient new health and general
community meeting places, including space suitable for faith use.
We previously commented on the draft of the Local Plan in December
2013, stating that the Marshgate Business Centre had not been included
within the list of allocated within Appendix 8 of the Mayor’s Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment (the draft housing target of 14,711
from 2015 to 2025, or 1,471 homes per year), nor the estimates of housing
delivery within the Draft Local Plan (December 2013) appendix table. We
stated that the additional capacity for our site should be included within
the pipeline supply in line with our timescales for delivery, within the
housing delivery appendix table in your draft plan, for 250 – 350 homes
from 2015.
Yes
Yes
Suggest
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
We note in LLDC’s Consultation Report, it agreed to include our allocation
within the tabled housing delivery appendix. However, ‘Table 13 Remaining Capacity’ on Page 236 has not been updated to reflect the
timescales for delivery for Marshgate Business Centre, and in fact includes
a reduction in housing numbers without planning permission over the plan
period, from 1,502 homes in the December 2013 version of the Local Plan,
to 1,206 homes within the revised draft. This is not in line with the
timescales for delivery within Site Allocation SA4.3.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
We would re-iterate that the Housing Allocation should be checked for
accuracy prior to submission, and our site should be included as being
delivered from 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 with a capacity of 250-350 new
homes.
We would also set out that it is important the evidence base and target is
accurate to meet Tests of Soundness 1 (based on objectively assessed
development) and 2 (justified and the most appropriate strategy). This is
particularly important as the plan is struggling to meet its five per cent
buffer on a rolling five-year basis beyond the first five years of the plan, as
set out in Para. 5.3 of the Draft Plan.
Test 4 requires compliancy with the London Plan and national policy. In
this respect, the LLDC Local Plan should reflect the new priority focus of
housing in the Further Alterations to the London Plan., within Table 13
“Remaining Capacity” of Appendix 2.
The text and housing allocations should be updated where relevant
including revisions to the evidence base, to ensure the plan is: (1)
Positively prepared and based on objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements; (2) Justified and the most appropriate
strategy considering reasonable alternatives; (3) Effective and deliverable
over the plan period; and (4) consistent with national policy.
Strategic
Policy
SP.2, Page
42
Strategic Policy SP.2: Maximising housing and infrastructure
provision within new neighbourhoods
The Legacy Corporation will work with its partners to maximise
opportunities for
delivering high-quality, sustainable and affordable homes and provision
of supporting
infrastructure through:
1. Delivering in excess of the London Plan target of 1,471 housing units per
annum, of which a minimum of 455 will be affordable subject to viability
2. Providing for identified size and tenure requirements, particularly family
housing in affordable all tenures and market housing where there is
demand, and where the site lends itself to family housing
3. Providing specialist housing and specific housing products which
contribute towards the overall housing mix and meet identified
requirements
4. Safeguarding existing residential units and land
5. Retaining existing community infrastructure and requiring the provision
of new community infrastructure alongside new development.
Reasoned justification
5.2 The Legacy Corporation has an annual housing delivery target, set
out within the London Plan. This has been developed by the Greater
London Authority (GLA), on the basis of its Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment, 2013, and robust assessment of housing needs.
The Legacy Corporation fully supports this housing delivery target and will
seek to achieve and exceed this through the application of this policy.
Policy application
5.3 This target will be achieved through a range of sources, including
large identified sites, non-self-contained accommodation (including
hostels and student accommodation), an annualised small site potential
Test of soundness 3 of paragraph 182 of the NPPF sets out that plans
should be effective and capable of being delivered over the plan
period.
Test of Soundness 4 requires Local Plans to be in conformity with national
policy and London’s Sustainable Development Strategy (the London
Plan). Test of Soundness 1 sets out that plans should be prepared based
on a strategy which seeks to objectively meet assessed development
requirements.
Given that recession(s) will occur over the plan period, it is reasonable to
assume that affordable housing delivery will fluctuate over the plan
period, depending on viability. Strategic Policy SP.2 should reflect this.
In respect of providing family housing , demand for private residential is
led by the market and where residential units meet this need,
development will be more viable and able to provide a higher provision
of affordable housing, including the relevant mix, as set out in policy.
Policy SP.2 should be updated to allow for this flexibility. As we have
previously set out, the requirement for larger family homes should be
flexible and considered on a site by site basis.
Paragraph 5.3 of the supporting text to the policy states that within the
last five years of the plan, delivery is less certain and that the five per cent
buffer will be met for the first five years, but may not be possible on a
rolling five-year basis beyond this. Given the emphasis of the London Plan
Further Alterations (2014) on housing, and in particular higher densities
and delivery of housing within Opportunity Areas, the supporting text
should reflect that other sources for housing could include the redesignation of employment land, for which a large proportion falls within
the Opportunity Areas.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 3
and 4.
Workspace 14
Policy H1,
Page 41
of 33 units and reuse of long-term vacant properties. Where appropriate,
self-build opportunities shall also contribute towards the housing supply
alongside the re-designation of other land uses, such as employment
land, dependent on economic factors of supply and demand. Figure 9,
the housing trajectory, shows the ability to deliver housing against the
housing target over the Plan period. It shows that within the last five years
delivery is less certain; however, London Plan targets will be reviewed by
2019/2020. The five per cent buffer will be met for the first five years, but it
may not be possible on a rolling five-year basis. The London Plan
recognises the difficulty of this approach. Nonetheless, the cumulative
housing target is expected to be exceeded, with more than 24,000
homes delivered over the Plan period through the creation of additional
capacity and greater delivery on small sites than anticipated. The
quantum and timescale of development are subject to change. The
trajectory and the list of key sites available in Appendix 2 will be kept
under review within the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR).
H.1: Providing a mix of housing types
Residential proposals should:
1. Meet identified local, and strategic and market requirements,
containing a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units and larger, with
units of two bedrooms and more constituting more than half the total. The
appropriate mix for individual sites should be determined on a site by site
basis, depending on their suitability to provide family housing.
2. Integrate a mix of unit types including flatted developments,
maisonettes and family houses into the design
3. Have no unacceptable adverse impacts on the mix and balance of
the proposed area
4. Meet London Plan and Housing SPG design considerations.
Reasoned justification
5.7 Providing for a range of different dwelling sizes and types is essential to
create sustainable new neighbourhoods and to avoid problems which
may arise from over-concentration of certain size and types of
accommodation. For this reason, a range of sizes to meet identified
requirements and different configurations of accommodation will be
sought including any relevant changes to the required mix over the plan
period. The principal aim is to achieve mixed and balanced communities.
Policy application
5.8 Evidence suggests that there is a particularly high requirement for the
following types of housing size:
• One-bedroom properties within market and affordable/social rented
• Two-bedroom properties in market housing
• Larger units (of three bedrooms or more) particularly within
affordable/social rented and low-cost home ownership sectors.
5.9 All proposals should reflect these identified size, form and tenure
requirements, providing an appropriate balanced mix of one-, two- and
three-bedroom units, including within affordable tenures. All proposals
should contain more two-bedroom-plus units than one-bedroom units,
and should not avoid the provision of any single size or tenure. When
considering the detailed mix of dwelling sizes, the Legacy Corporation will
consider individual site circumstances, including location, viability and the
maintenance of mixed and balanced communities alongside changing
demands over the plan period. Proposals which cluster units of a
particular size and tenure and do not reflect these requirements will not
be permitted. In all cases, proposals should show how the provision of
LLDC Local Plan EiP
As we have previously set out, the requirement for larger family homes
should be flexible and considered on a site by site basis, and should
reflect any perceived changing demand over the plan period to meet
Test of Soundness 3. We note a reference has been added within the
policy application section, and this should also be included within the
reasoned justification section.
The Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy emphasises the point of ensuring
delivery of overall housing supply (para. 4.11):
“The GLA will concentrate its planning efforts and housing investment in
the Opportunity Areas, alongside investment from Transport for London
and the London Enterprise Panel. Many of these sites will need additional
support to unlock development, particularly to ensure that the capacity
to deliver homes is maximised. It would be a hugely wasted opportunity
to bring these sites forward at less than optimal capacity due to a lack of
collective foresight and upfront investment.”
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
family housing has been maximised.
Paragraph
5.12, Page
46
Policy H.2,
page 49
5.10 Where appropriate and viable, units intended for family housing
should be within a mix of flatted development and traditional houses or
maisonettes where sites are deemed appropriate. Consideration should
also be given to how
developments can be designed to suit the lifestyles of large family
groups, including layouts with kitchens separate from other living space
where there is an existing demonstrated need.
5.12 The Legacy Corporation is directed by the London Plan on a range
of housing policies which will be applied: design and access, play space,
residential amenity, daylight and sunlight, accessibility and space
standards, many of which are detailed within the Mayor’s Housing SPG,
including safety design principles. The London Plan’s density matrix is a
useful tool, referencing Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) for
determining densities; however, when considering the appropriate
density, the Legacy Corporation will consider individual site
circumstances including: location, constraints, transport accessibility,
connectivity and capacity; management, occupancy and tenure of the
development; and contribution of the site to the Legacy Corporation’s
convergence aims. This Plan will seek to optimise land to reflect the
desperate housing need and comply with the Draft Further Alterations to
the London Plan (2015).
H.2: Delivering affordable housing
Affordable housing will be maximised on sites capable of providing ten
units or more, broken down as 60 per cent Affordable Rent and Social
Rent, and 40 per cent intermediate. The following shall be considerations
for maximising provision:
1. Identified needs and tenure requirements
2. Affordable housing targets and delivery rates
3. The need to facilitate development
4. Viability including phased viability re-appraisal
5. Balancing any other relevant contributions provided through
development
Affordable housing should be delivered on site in the first instance. Off-site
provision will only be considered where it:
5. Provides equivalent number and type of affordable units across all sites
related to the proposal;
6. Does not prejudice the delivery of affordable housing;
7. Is delivered at no financial advantage to developer;
Test of Soundness 4 requires Local Plans to be in conformity with national
policy and London’s Sustainable Development Strategy, the London Plan.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 1
and 4.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
Test of Soundness 1 sets out that plans should be prepared based on a
strategy which seeks to objectively meet assessed development
requirements.
Adjoining Paragraph 5.12 sets out that “The London Plan’s density matrix is
a useful tool, referencing Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) for
determining densities; however, when considering the appropriate
density, the Legacy Corporation will consider individual site
circumstances.”
Whilst we agree with this approach, it should be noted that development
densities should support the general thrust of the Draft Further Alterations
of the London Plan (2014), which provides further focus on optimising
housing delivery, particularly in Opportunity Areas.
This is particularly important in the context of Paragraph 5.3 of the Draft
LLDC Local Plan, which states that for housing supply within the last five
years of the plan, delivery is less certain and that the five per cent buffer
will be met for the first five years, but may not be possible on a rolling fiveyear basis beyond this. As such, optimising housing delivery will be
important to exceed the LLDC’s housing target over the plan period.
Test of soundness 3 of paragraph 182 of the NPPF sets out that plans
should be effective and capable of being delivered over the plan
period.
As such, an additional reference should be provided within Policy H.2 to
recognise that any financial and other contributions should be balanced
against overall scheme viability.
The supporting text should be updated at paragraph 5.14 to allow for
flexibility for providing larger, family-type housing where appropriate and
viable.
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
8. Is linked to the completion of the market housing elements of the
scheme
9. Is located where able to provide for local housing needs; and
10. Would be beneficial to achieve and maintain mixed and balanced
communities.
Financial contributions will only be acceptable when on-site provision and
all potential off-site options have been fully explored and discounted,
and linked to a particular site or proposal.
Reasoned justification
5.13 Providing for housing needs including through different affordable
tenures is crucial to achieving mixed and balanced communities. For this
reason, a proportion of total housing delivery will be within affordable
tenures. This has been set as a minimum target of 35 per cent of
affordable homes across the whole of the Legacy Corporation area. This
has been determined according to evidence and subject to rigorous
viability testing to determine viability across the whole of the area. This
should be used as a minimum and will be used to commence discussions
on individual schemes.
Appendix
2: Key
Housing
Allocation
s
Table 6.1:
Estimates
of housing
delivery
2013/142030/31,
page 69
Policy application
5.14 Affordable rent is a relatively new product, where eligibility is based
upon local incomes and local house prices rather than local authority lists
alone. Affordable rent is intended to address similar types of need to that
within traditional social housing. Half of the affordable rented product will
include rental rates capped to ensure the requirements of those most in
need are met (similar to those within local authority nomination lists). For
the remainder within the ‘discounted’ level, this should have typical rents
of no more than 80 per cent of market value, including service charge.
This level is broadly achievable across the area. In practice, the Legacy
Corporation is not setting specific local rental caps, but will expect
developers and registered providers to agree the proposed rental levels,
maintained as low as possible, based on meeting local Borough needs,
benefit caps and maximising output. Developers will be expected to
demonstrate that they have engaged with a registered provider and
secured a commitment for provision. Subject to the availability of
appropriate funding, delivery of social rented accommodation within the
area will be supported. Affordable housing should maximise larger, familytype housing where appropriate and viable. Affordable accommodation
should be indistinguishable externally from other tenures.
Recommendations:
We re-iterate that additional capacities for Marshgate Business Centre
and 14 Marshgate Lane should be included within the Draft Plan,
including addressing discrepancies and providing accurate phasing for
the Marshgate site including projected housing delivery figures (250-350
new homes scheduled for delivery 2015/2016 to 2019/2020) across all
areas of the plan
In line with our comments on Objective 2, Page 41, we recommend that
the discrepancy in housing numbers across the plan is updated.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Matter 4: Natural and Built Environment
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Policy
BN,2, Page
74
Policy BN.2: Creating distinctive waterway environments
The Legacy Corporation will work with its partners to optimise the
functions and enhance the local distinctiveness of waterway
environments, expecting development
proposals that affect the waterway environment to:
1. Improve the ecological potential, drainage and flood resilience
capacity of the waterway
2. Support the aims of the Thames River Basin Management Plan
3. Create opportunities for recreational activities along the waterway
4. Introduce recreational, visitor and residential moorings and improve
existing moorings where suitable, and deliverable
5. Support commercial activity
6. Improve access to and along the waterway as appropriate
7. Prevent disruption to the movement of passengers and freight.
Policy BN.4: Designing residential schemes
Proposals will be considered acceptable where residential elements are
in broad accordance with meet the ‘Baseline’ Quality and Design
Standards outlined within Annex 1 of the Mayor of London’s Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2012), including any
future revisions or superseding guidance.
Proposals for residential development must also:
1. Contribute towards the creation of distinctive, integrated, legible,
connected and sustainable places
2. Exhibit the principles of good design, by incorporating high-quality
landscape and architectural design, including high-quality materials,
finishes and details
3. Minimise impact upon existing surrounding development and not result
in an unacceptable loss of privacy or an unreasonable degree of
overlooking towards habitable rooms and private amenity spaces within
or around existing development
4. Demonstrate that the scheme will receive adequate levels of daylight
and sunlight, and that existing surrounding development will not
experience an unacceptable loss
of sunlight and daylight when measured against the guidance provided
in accordance within Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight
We support the policy’s emphasis on enhancing and opening up
waterways for public use. In respect of moorings, these should be
applicable in line with the relevant tests within the NPPF for Planning
Obligations, and be secured only where relevant.
Yes
Yes
Yes
We support the policy’s emphasis on providing high quality residential
development for the longevity of the supply of good quality housing.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Policy
BN.4, Page
78
The policy should be appropriately flexible to reflect individual site
circumstances where greater benefits to development exist, and
whereby minimal impact will occur, in line with Test 3 of the NPPF.
The Marshgate Business Centre site is located within an area of
convergence between guideline building heights of between 4–6 storeys
and 11 storeys plus as set out within the OLSPG. It also falls within a
corridor considered generally appropriate for 8 storey buildings with
landmark buildings of 16 – 24 storeys. Given this context, it is important
that the emerging Local Plan policy does not preclude a site such as this
from acting as a suitable transitional location in scale terms between
areas to the south where building heights of 11 plus storeys are proposed,
and areas to the north and west where a lower scale of development
away from the taller buildings proposed along Stratford High Street is
identified as being more appropriate. Enabling sites like this to fulfil such a
role would represent a sensible approach in townscape terms which
would avoid abrupt changes in the scale of development across the
Workspace 14
(Building Research Establishment, 2011), including any future revisions or
superseding guidance
5. Ensure surrounding open spaces receive adequate levels of daylight
and sunlight.
LLDC Local Plan EiP
Local Plan area from arising, particularly where development contributes
to improvements to its waterside setting & connectivity.
As set out within the CABE/ English Heritage guidance, where it is
demonstrated that no harm arises that cannot be mitigated in terms of
townscape, environmental impacts and infrastructure capacity,
development of significant height and scale should be considered
acceptable.
Many planning approvals within the vicinity of the site already exceed
the London Plan Density Matrix based on their existing Public Transport
Accessibility Levels including parts of the Strand East Development (Ref:
12/00336/LTGOUT) and more notably the approval at 68-70 High Street,
Stratford (Ref: 11/90619/FUMODA) which has a PTAL of 4, comparative
with the Marshgate Site.
Of particular relevance is the planning approval of 68-70 Stratford High
Street, adjoining the Marshgate site to its south beyond the Bow Back
River, which has approval for a development of up to 18 storeys (Ref:
11/90619/FUMODA). Site PDZ8, also incorporating the “Pudding Mill” area
of Sub Area 4, also allows for taller buildings of up to 42m (14 storeys) in
height (Ref: 11/90621/OUTODA).
Optimising land for housing is also a principle supported, particularly
within Opportunity Areas, as set out within the Draft Further Alterations to
the London Plan (2014).
Policy
BN.10,
Page 89
Policy BN.10: Proposals for tall buildings
Proposals for tall buildings will be considered acceptable where they:
1. Exhibit outstanding architecture and incorporate high-quality materials,
finishes and details
2. Respect the scale and grain of their context
3. Relate well to street widths and make a positive contribution to the
streetscape
4. Generate an active street frontage
5. Provide accessible public space within their curtilage
6. Incorporate sufficient communal space
7. Contribute to defining public routes and spaces
8. Promote legibility
9. Create new or enhance existing views, vistas and sightlines
10. Preserve or enhance heritage assets and the views to/from these, and
contribute positively to the setting of heritage assets, including
conservation areas.
Proposals for tall buildings that are likely to have a significant adverse
impact on one or more of the following will be will be considered
unacceptable unless they provide appropriate mitigation measures:
11. Micro-climatic conditions (specifically down-draughts and lateral
winds over
public spaces)
12. Amenity: impacts to the surrounding area (including open spaces,
other buildings and waterways)
that relate to:
• Overlooking
• Daylight
• Overshadowing
We support the revisions to this policy, however it has been revised to be
more stringent.
No definition is given to “wider amenity” and therefore this reference
should be removed.
An additional sentence has been included too state “buildings are
defined by the Legacy Corporation as those that are higher than a Sub
Area’s prevailing height as set out in this Plan” – this last part of the
sentence which has been added in should be removed, as the
townscape context will change over time and the plan needs to be
flexible to reflect the area’s changing context
As set out within the CABE/ English Heritage guidance, where it is
demonstrated that no harm arises that cannot be mitigated in terms of
townscape, environmental impacts and infrastructure capacity,
development of significant height and scale should be considered
acceptable. Amended wording to reflect this is suggested and to allow
for appropriate flexibility (Test of Soundness), in line with the Further
Alterations to the London Plan (2014) Tall Buildings policy and general
thrust to provide more housing within Opportunity Areas, to meet housing
targets (Test of Soundness 4).
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 3
and 4.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
• Light spill/reflection
• Wider amenity
13. Existing views of landmarks, parkland, heritage assets, waterways, and
views along street corridors (in accordance with the policy on Protecting
Key Views).
Tall buildings should be located within the Centre boundaries outlined
within this Local Plan.
In order of hierarchy, these are:
• Stratford Town Centre Extension
• Bromley-by-Bow District Centre
• Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre
• Pudding Mill Local Centre
• East Village Local Centre.
Tall buildings are defined by the Legacy Corporation as those that are
higher than a Sub Area’s prevailing height as set out in this Plan
Where it is demonstrated that no harm arises that cannot be mitigated in
terms of townscape, environmental impacts and infrastructure capacity,
development of significant height and scale may be considered
acceptable on a site by site basis.
Matter 5: Infrastructure
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Objective
4, Page
101
Objective 4: Secure the infrastructure required to support growth and
convergence. This will mean:
• Working with partners to secure the infrastructure identified within the
Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan
• Reviewing regularly infrastructure need to ensure identified
requirements remain up to date
• Use Section 106 Agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy to
contribute towards infrastructure delivery
• Delivering new development
• Managing the effects of new development
• Improving local connectivity, including delivery of new bridges and
routes to maximise walking and cycling.
Strategic Policy SP.4: Planning for and securing infrastructure
to support growth and convergence
The Legacy Corporation will work with its partners to promote and deliver
the infrastructure necessary to support the growth and development
identified within this Local Plan and its Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
In particular, the Legacy Corporation will support provision of the
following types of infrastructure:
1. The expansion of electronic communication networks, including
telecommunications and high-speed broadband
2. Public transport infrastructure and services that will help to deliver the
growth objectives set out within this Local Plan, including those that will
improve international, national,
regional and local connectivity
The Legacy Corporation will safeguard land for the provision of the
following infrastructure:
3. DLR double tracking at Stratford
4. Crossrail 1
5. Crossrail 2 (existing safeguarded corridor and any update route)
Test of soundness 1 and 3 sets out a duty for Local Plans to be deliverable,
and therefore a reference to highlight this emphasis should be included
within Objective 4.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 4.
Test of soundness 1 and 3 sets out a duty for Local Plans to be deliverable,
and accordingly a reference to viability in respect of the whole package
of contributions should be included within the policy.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 3.
Policy
SP.4, Page
102
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
The Legacy Corporation will require the retention of:
6. Existing waste management facilities (subject to the provisions of Policy
IN.2)
7. Existing public transport infrastructure.
The Legacy Corporation will use its Community Infrastructure Levy funding
to help deliver the infrastructure on the CIL Infrastructure list. Where
appropriate and lawful, infrastructure or contributions toward its delivery
will also be secured through the use of Planning Obligations, dependent
on scheme viability in the context of the total planning obligations
package for development.
Matter 7: Sub Area Policies
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
Vision,
Page 205
Vision
This will become an area of new business and residential communities
that find a focus at a new District Centre at Bromley-by-Bow and a new
Local Centre at Pudding Mill, with a secondary hub of employment and
leisure uses in the north part of Sugar House Lane. The District Centre at
Bromley-by-Bow will provide a new primary school, community facilities
and public open spaces. A new DLR station at Pudding Mill and an
enhanced Bromley-by-Bow Station will provide excellent public transport
links to nearby work and leisure opportunities and good access to the rest
of London. New and improved local foot and cycle paths will provide
accessible and safe routes to the stations and local shops and services.
The many new homes in Bromley-by-Bow, Sugar House Lane and Pudding
Mill will meet a wide range of housing needs, while the new homes,
business and other premises will have been sensitively and excellently
designed, taking account of the historic waterside settings and the
heritage assets within and around the Conservation Areas. By 2031, the
Sub Area will have become a distinct series of new urban communities,
well connected to their surroundings.
Policy 4.2: Bringing forward new connections to serve new development
Development proposals within Sub Area 4 should not prejudice and,
where relevant, should contribute towards the improvement of existing
and the delivery of new connections necessary to serve the anticipated
needs of development within the Sub Area, where viable and considered
within the wider planning obligations package for development.
The improvements to existing and new connections considered necessary
for the delivery of the development anticipated within this Sub Area are:
1. Accessibility improvements including a new junction on the A12 at
Bromley-by-Bow that serves the potential new District Centre by
improving access for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general traffic
We support the vision for Sub Area Four. It provides a balanced approach
to the needs of the area and allows for appropriate flexibility of uses,
however this is not reflected within the Site Allocation itself.
Yes
Yes
Yes
In accordance with Tests of Soundness 1 and 3, the wider package of
benefits secured for any planning application should be considered,
including any impact on viability.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Policy 4.2,
Page 210
Workspace 14
Site
Allocation
SA4.2,
Page 218
2. Improving the pedestrian underpass adjacent to Bromley-by-Bow
Station to allow access to the new District Centre and beyond
3. New and improved vehicle, pedestrian and cycle bridges across the
River Lea; a new all-movements junction on the A11 to improve access to
and from Sugar House Lane for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general
traffic
4. A new bridge across the Bow Back River linking to the all-movements
junction and connecting with Marshgate Lane
5. Delivery of a cycle superhighway route along Stratford High Street
6. Delivery of a west-east pedestrian and cycle route, parallel with
Stratford High Street, through Pudding Mill, across the Greenway and
through the Greater Carpenters area parallel to Stratford Town Centre
7. Pedestrian and cycle improvements at Bow Interchange
8. New and improved pedestrian and cycle links from Pudding Mill Lane
DLR Station to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park via the Greenway and
Southern Loop Road.
Site Allocation SA4.3: Pudding Mill
A new medium-density, mixed-use area, including a significant and
diverse element of new and replacement business floorspace, including
spaces suitable for small- and
medium-sized businesses; a new Local Centre adjacent to Pudding Mill
Lane DLR Station and Pudding Mill Lane; new homes including a
significant element of family housing; new Local Open Space, Playspace
and public realm. Cumulatively across the Pudding Mill Site Allocation, 25
per cent non-residential floorspace should be achieved optimised where
demonstrated to be viable and where there is an identified need, with a
predominantly industrial
floorspace use mix in the area to the west of Cooks Road and around the
Crossrail portal.
Development principles
• Proposals for tall buildings development above 21 metres above
ground level will only be acceptable subject to the provisions of Policy
BN.10, with some taller elements in the Local Centre
• Non-residential uses should be focused along a new central east-west
street
• The form of development should allow for improved east-west
connections through the site
• Provision should be made for safeguarding key connections, including
new bus/cycle/pedestrian connection from Stratford High Street to
Marshgate Lane and a new pedestrian/cycle connection from Wrexham
Road over the A12 and River Lea
• Land should be safeguarded Safeguarding of land for DLR North Route
Double Tracking phase 2.
• Regard will need to be had to not prejudicing the operation of the
safeguarded rail freight site to the west (for example by ensuring that
noise sensitive uses are located away from the site).
Supporting Development principles
•Landowners will need to work together to bring forward comprehensive
schemes that are capable of achieving the ambitions for development of
the site allocation and delivering identified infrastructure needed for the
site as a whole.
• Open Space/playspace needs to be provided alongside development
and located within pockets across the site
• A new Local Centre should be brought forward adjacent to Pudding
Mill DLR Station
LLDC Local Plan EiP
The Plan fails to meet Tests of Soundness 2, 3 and 4 as it is too stringent to
be applied over the plan period; fails to comply with national and
regional policy and Borough policy; fails to be underpinned by an
appropriate evidence base.
No, as the plan
has not been
revised in
accordance
with our
previous
comments.
No, as the plan
has not been
revised in
accordance
with our
previous
comments.
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
• A significant proportion of family homes should be provided
• It would be appropriate to re-align Barbers Road to provide a dual
fronted street and screening to the Crossrail site
• Other Industrial Location designation maintained along the western
edge to form a buffer to A12 (see Policy B.1)
Site
Allocation
SA4.3,
Page 218
and
Proposals
Map
Phasing and implementation
• Delivery on site from 2015 onwards
• Lack of existing residential uses, amenity and limited connectivity will
require early phases to consider carefully the provision of amenity and
access
• Consideration of the transition to residential use is required to avoid
poor adjacencies between retained industrial uses and residential
redevelopment
• Strategic requirement to enhance the north-south connections
between the Local Centre adjacent to Pudding Mill DLR Station, across to
Sugar House Lane and south-west to Bromley-by-Bow District Centre. An
additional crossing is identified to allow an enhanced bus, pedestrian and
cycle route
• The non-residential employment uses are concentrated on the eastwest street and special-use sites to allow the incremental growth of
employment space with each development parcel.
We would suggest the boundary of the Local Centre is revised to be
consistent across the whole Local Plan, as it is not currently clear
The proposals map shows a different boundary for the Local Centre of
Pudding Mill compared to that which is shown within Site SA4.3. This
discrepancy should be addressed in order to be accurate.
Yes
Yes
n/a – point on
accuracy of
Pudding Mill
Local Centre
Allocation
Pudding Mill Land Use and Design Framework
Policy/
Paragraph
Suggested amendment (where relevant)
Comment
Legally
Compliant?
Complies with
the Duty to
Cooperate?
Sound?
General
Comment
General comment
The status of the Pudding Mill Land Use and Design Framework is not set
out anywhere across any of the LLDC Local Plan documents, and
therefore it is assumed the document is background evidence only.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Reference
s to
Viability –
“Purpose
of this
document
”; Page 54,
Page 55,
Page 56
See relevant sections for context
There are several references that set out the document has texted the
commercial viability of options as well as understanding how they are
affected by existing land ownership and the current development
context.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Notwithstanding this approach, each scheme should be considered at
the stage that it is delivered. To take our site as an example, the Build
Costs and Development Values have proved to be high resulting from a
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
number of different site specific variables.
Page 10,
What is
Pudding
Mill?
Page 12,
Land
Ownership
and
Consultati
on
Page 23,
Site History
Pudding Mill is a place with potential in the midst of a rapidly changing
area. It is located in Stratford and lies to the south of N new
developments within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park including
HereEast, Chobham Manor, East Wick, Sweetwater, Westfield and
potential UCL and Olympicopolis schemes., all demonstrate the demand
to invest in the area. As has been shown in developments like HereEast,
There is potential a need to provide space that caters for increasing
demand in emerging employment trends.
This masterplan approach has been made possible by the relatively few
landowner parcels that make up Pudding Mill, with various sites already or
becoming vacant in the post-Olympic/Crossrail stages. This offers a
unique opportunity to formulate a strong vision for the site that can
capture the common interests of all the stakeholders. With a masterplan
approach agreed, we have set to consult all the key stakeholders at
multiple stages during the masterplan process with individual ‘fact
finding’ and follow-up meetings to share the emerging proposals. LB
Newham also attended application discussions.
Pudding Mill currently consists of a some longstanding employment uses,
some of which are low quality, vacant and underused, with the remainder
of the site temporarily vacant from
Olympics Games and Crossrail construction activities.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
Whilst we have engaged in the process of developing the masterplan,
we are not fully aligned with its content and would therefore seek the
removal of part of this sentence.
Yes
Yes
n/a
We would suggest this sentence is included to accurately reflect the
Marshgate Business Centre’s existing context, as it counts for
approximately a third of privately owned land within Pudding Mill.
Yes
Yes
n/a
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 2.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all of the Tests of
Soundness.
This is a generalised assumption that assumes a link between the HereEast
and other schemes, where our own research has shown that there is no
connection to spin-off benefits at Pudding Mill at the present time. It
should be revised to meet Tests of Soundness 1 to 4.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for further
justification for the amendments.
We also seek a correction within the Business Survey evidence base
report, which sets out that Pudding Mill includes “an interesting mix of
businesses; the internationally-renowned Three Mills Studio, for example,
hosts 12 businesses with close links to the film industry. In the northern part
of the sub-area, buildings such as the Marshgate Business Centre are
partially vacant, but offer a mix of light-industrial and workshop space.”
Three Mills Studio is not included within Pudding Mill and lies within Sugar
House Lane.
Page 28
Let the
Dough
Rise, Page
28
A long history of employment and industry on the site
- Low density or temporarily vacated sites from Crossrail and Olympic
construction
- Improved connectivity and infrastructure to and through the site
improves its potential as a mixed use community
- New trends in employment and industry provide potential for the mixing
of employment uses alongside residential uses
It is proposed that the remaining area of the site can provide space for a
range of employment types, with demand to be demonstrated on a case
by case basis. across 25% of the buildings. The redevelopment and
reoccupation of vacant sites on this basis should provide around 17,500
sq m of additional B1 and B2 (suitable for residential adjacency) uses. A
further 3000 sq m of current B2 floorspace has also been identified as
suitable for residential adjacency.
There are no “new trends” in employment in respect of emerging new
uses Pudding Mill, nor is there evidence that there are other uses or
developments that provide spin off benefits. It is recommended this
sentence is removed in order to meet Tests of Soundness 1 and 2.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for further
justification for the amendments.
The evidence for the provision of a blanket 25% employment use across
Pudding Mill is unfounded, and there is no evidence that such a level of
B1 and B2 uses can be sustained within Pudding Mill for employment uses,
nor is the source of the data within this section referenced.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for the main
justification for the removal of this reference.
Furthermore, in respect of whether B2/ B8 uses are acceptable in
principle adjoining residential, referring to the Use Class Order (as
amended) B1 Uses are defined as “B1 Business - Offices (other than those
that fall within A2), research and development of products and
processes, light industry appropriate in a residential area” whereas B2
uses are defined as “B2 General industrial - Use for industrial process other
than one falling within class B1 (excluding incineration purposes,
chemical treatment or landfill or hazardous waste)”. B8 uses are defined
as “Use for storage or as an distribution centre (including open storage)”.
It is not clear how B2/ B8 uses can be promoted in residential areas given
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
their potential impact on such uses and the curtailment of the
functionality of such industrial uses from residential, particularly on a
speculative basis.
This approach also contradicts the assumptions set out within the LLDC’s
Employment Land Review (URS, May 2014) which states that B2/ B8 uses
require a higher amount of parking, are located within areas of lower
public transport accessibility, can have negative impacts on adjoining
uses including residential (a third of the land reviewed were considered to
be “bad neighbour” uses). As such, it states there is limited potential for
industrial provision to be included as part of mixed-use development and
only where incorporated with typologies compatible with other uses
including retail and leisure.
In respect of demand for B2/ B8 uses, our Commercial Market Review
shows that demand is declining but where it still exists, Pudding Mill is not a
preferred location. Places such as Beckton, which have the benefit of
good highways connections and agglomeration advantages, are much
more desirable. This is in line with the allocations strategy set out within
policies J1 and J2 of LBN’s Core Strategy.
It is therefore considered the blanket 25% reference should be removed in
order to comply with Policy Tests 1-4. It is further noted that within the
Consultation Report (2014), our previous comments on the proposed 25%
allocation have not been included, and would request these further
representations are taken into account.
Page 30,
The
Masterpla
n
Page 32
The Land Use and Design Framework provides overall guidance for the
site, considering the existing consented LCS scheme (PDZ 8) alongside
current and future development sites. It recognises the new Pudding Mill
Lane DLR Station as the driver for a new Local Centre connected along
Marshgate Lane to additional retail provision and ultimately the District
Centre at Bow along Sugar House Lane. This street forms the main
community focus for the neighbourhood and connects to the Marshgate
Lane waterfront site at the historic site of the Pudding Mill. Extending eastwest from Marshgate Lane is the main ‘employment’ street forming a
seam along adjoining development plots and concentrating the
standalone employment buildings along one mixed-use route, but still
distributing the provision between every plot.
Delivery of potential Olympicopolis and the UCL campus will provide a
new centre of world class research and culture within the Queen
Elizabeth Olympic Park, and may in the future serve as a major new
catalyst for innovation for adjacent sites including at Pudding Mill. is well
located to provide valuable support space for many of these research
and innovation activities, as well as uses such as an urban bioscience
park.
It is not the role of this document to contain detail about the use of
separate buildings, which should be done on a scheme by scheme basis
to allow for appropriate flexibility to meet Test of Soundness 3.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
There are no new trends in employment and history at Pudding Mill, nor is
there evidence that there are other uses or developments that provide
spin off benefits. It is recommended this sentence is removed.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 2.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 2.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for further
justification for the amendments.
The relevant amendments are required to meet Tests of Soundness 1 and
2.
Page 32,
“Ingredien
ts”
As part of the LLDC Local Economy Study, the LLDC commissioned We
Made That to undertake qualitative research into the area. The report
documented the nature of places of employment, recognising the
positive contribution that varied sectors make to the local economy and
provides examples and recommendations to secure a successful and
vibrant future for employment in the Legacy Corporation area.
The report identifies the following emerging employment trends within the
area:
1 Small to Medium Scale Food and Drink Manufacturing
2 ‘Industrial Crafts’ and Small Scale Manufacturing
This section of the report implies that these uses fall within Pudding Mill
area. However none of the case The Qualitative Research Study
undertaken by We Made That were within Pudding Mill. This section
should be either removed or re-worded to clarify this, or the references to
these uses should be removed.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for further
justification for the amendments.
Workspace 14
LLDC Local Plan EiP
3 Tech and Digital Enterprise
4 Role of Large Institutions and Universities
5 Stratford / QEOP ‘Halo’
6 Open Access Specialist Fabrication
7 Bio-Science Facilities
Pudding Mill has always been an area of employment. The masterplan
retains this vital economic contribution to the area. Employment uses are
contained and expressed within standalone buildings, avoiding the
‘dead’ ground floor frontages seen along Stratford High Street. This form
will be important in encouraging new employment uses such as those
mentioned on page 32.
All streets should achieve a width to height ratio of between a minimum of
0.6 to 1 and a maximum of 1 to 1.
The relevant amendment is required to meet Tests of Soundness 1 and 2.
Page 42,
“Employm
ent”
Page 43
“Employm
ent”, Page
36 and
adjoining
diagram
Page 40
It is not the role of this document to contain detail about the use of
separate buildings, which should be done on a scheme by scheme basis.
Our client, Workspace, is London’s leading provider of SMEs and is best
placed to suggest a layout, which should be flexible and led by market
demand and to allow for flexibility in line with Test of Soundness 3.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Whilst the Masterplan contains general design and layout principles
which are generally supported, parts of the document go beyond the
role that should normally be taken as part of a planning application, and
as such these references should be removed to allow for flexibility in line
with Test of Soundness 3.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
Employment uses are contained and expressed within standalone
buildings, avoiding the ‘dead’ ground floor frontages seen along Stratford
High Street. The form, character and use of these buildings takes cues
from historical precedent within Pudding Mill and from modern examples
elsewhere. They should be distinct, outward looking buildings that express
their function as centres for innovation and new technologies such as bio
science facilities. The moderate scale of employment building proposed
offers considerable flexibility: from commercial offices, to incubators for
multiple companies and startups, to creative economy users or light
industrial manufacture.
Employment should not just be included as a single floor pancake with
residential above, but instead be fully integrated as a standalone building
or vertical slice within a cluster of uses. This way it contributes to a variety
of street facades and flexible uses. This avoids the impact of large areas
of blank facade along the ground floor, or a monoculture of employment
types suited to ground floor only.
It is not the role of this document to contain detail about the use of
separate buildings, which should be done on a scheme by scheme basis.
Our client, Workspace, is London’s leading provider of SMEs and is best
placed to suggest a layout, which should be flexible and led by market
demand. Commercial and Market Strategies would instead demonstrate
the viability of an employment use and allow for flexibility in line with Test
of Soundness 3.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
1. Significant Employment Mixed Use Building
At the gateway sites identified at Barbers Road and on the historic
‘pudding mill’ site, between the Marshgate Lane bridges there is scope
for a mixed use building containing an appropriate and viable proportion
of uses. high quality special employment building, representative of the
wider Pudding Mill area as a industrial neighbourhood, suitable for
specialist research, or with a civic expressive quality that fits the
prominence of the site. It should have a vibrant ground floor, a
community or collegiate feel and could include a range of uses, cafes or
restaurants amongst employment areas
There are no “new trends” in employment in respect of emerging new
uses Pudding Mill, nor is there evidence that there are other uses or
developments that provide spin off benefits.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Test of
Soundness 3.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for further
justification for the amendments.
Development should not be curtailed given the potential benefits to the
site particularly as there is no evidence to suggest that such uses are
viable.
It is not the role of this document to contain this level of detail about the
Marshgate Business Centre site, which should be done on a scheme by
scheme basis at planning application stage. Our client, Workspace, is
London’s leading provider of SMEs and is best placed to suggest a layout
for its site as an expert of the market, which should be flexible and led by
market demand in line with Test of Soundness 3.
Page 49
Playspace Diagram
Playspace provision should be measured against the criteria set out within
the Mayor’s Playspace SPG, 2012.
Yes
Yes
n/a
Page 54,
“What
Through an iterative process, the masterplan has established a scale of
development that accounts for design, policy, viability, daylighting and
The evidence for the provision of a blanket 25% employment use across
Pudding Mill is unfounded and should be removed to meet Tests of
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
Workspace 14
Temperatu
re?”
Page 72,
“Marshgat
e Lane”
Figure
15.1, page
203
massing considerations for the site. In line with the LLDC Local Plan and
permitted development within the LCS scheme, development sites at
Pudding Mill should provide a viable quantum of minimum of 25%
employment floorspace, with a predominantly industrial floorspace mix in
the area to the west of Cooks Road. As outlined by LBN’s Core Strategy,
development proposals should seek a minimum of 39% of new homes to
be for families depending on site specific and scheme considerations.
The London Plan and LBN’s Core Strategy considers the range of
appropriate densities for the Pudding Mill area to be 300-650 habitable
rooms per hectare. Stratford Regional Masterplan and the OLSPG state
that 4-6 storeys is appropriate for the site unless demonstrated otherwise.
Marshgate Lane
Prominent mixed-use site at the north east corner of Pudding Mill. The
special employment use site is formed by the twin routes and bridges that
cross Bow Back Creek and connect to Stratford High Street and
Sugarhouse Lane and helps announce the arrival onto Pudding
Mill island.
Ingredients
Minimum 25% of floorspace for employment use to be optimised
depending on market demand and scheme viability- to be located
predominantly within ‘hub’ site, defined by the two bridges
- Minimum 39% of housing for families targeted
- Raised towpath between the new bus bridge and Marshgate Lane
bridge, provide ideal setting for restaurant or commercial animation.
- Ideal site for prominent civic and employment building
- Balconies should be predominantly recessed to reinforce the simple
massing
- Outboard balconies are acceptable in locations where they do not
create issues of privacy and overlooking
- Stepped back upper floors should be articulated to maintain the visual
coherence of the six storey datum line subject to townscape impact
- Development should seek to maximise accessible roofspace for both
residents and workers
- Employment and retail frontages should be ‘active’
14.7 The infrastructure that is necessary to support the development in this
Local Plan is identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The policies
and Site Allocations in this Local Plan, alongside the mechanisms set out
in this section, will help to secure the delivery of that infrastructure, taking
into consideration the full package of any benefits provided from
development.
LLDC Local Plan EiP
wording to meet
all Tests of
Soundness.
Soundness 1 - 4.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for the main
justification for the removal of this reference alongside further comments
on Page 28, “Let the Dough Rise”
The evidence for the provision of a blanket 25% employment use across
Pudding Mill is unfounded and should be removed to meet Tests of
Soundness 1 - 4.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
all Tests of
Soundness.
Yes
Yes
Suggested
amended
wording to meet
Tests of
Soundness 1
and 3.
See our comments on Section 4, Objective 1, Page 19 for the main
justification for the removal of this reference alongside further comments
on Page 28, “Let the Dough Rise”
Test of soundness 1 and 3 sets out a duty for Local Plans to be deliverable,
and accordingly a reference to viability in respect of the whole package
of contributions should be included within the policy. This text should be
updated to recognise this approach.