Hackney Council report on Essex & Eastwood Wharf

Lea Marshes

See Essex Wharf for the application

See also architects plans and drawings

See NLLDC flyer about Hackney Planning Committee meeting to discuss this application

Agenda Planning Sub-Committee

Wednesday, 3rd February, 2010 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA

ADDRESS: Essex Wharf, Leabridge Road, London, E5 9RL

APPLICATION NUMBER: 2009/2812

REPORT AUTHOR: Ian Bailey

VALID DATE: 10 December 2009

APPLICANT: Essex Wharf Homes LLP & A2 Dominion (London) Ltd

AGENT: Mr Luke Emmerton, DP9

PROPOSAL: Observation to the London Borough of Waltham Forest on Residential redevelopment - Demolition of existing buildings and construction of four separate blocks (ranging from 5-9 storeys in height) comprising of 144 residential units (30 x 1 bed, 94 x 2 bed, 18 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed). Provisions for car parking, vehicular access, new cycle and pedestrian routes (London Borough of Waltham Forest ref: 2009/1515)

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: OBJECT Note to Members: Members are requested to note that the application relates to a site within the London Borough of Waltham Forest, and which immediately abuts the Borough boundary. In line with statutory requirements for consultation on planning application, LB Waltham Forest has notified LB Hackney of the application. The application is presented to the planning sub-committee as it is considered to have significant cross borough impacts. Given the above, this report deals with the strategic details of the cross borough impacts and whether these are considered potential reasons for raising objections to the development. It does not address details of land use planning or more detailed matters (e.g. the principle of the development, or detailed design of the internal layout of units) where the local planning policies and guidance of LB Waltham Forest would be the relevant material planning considerations.

Agenda Item 10

1. SITE CONTEXT

1.1 The site lies to the west of the River Lea, which is also the boundary with the London Borough of Hackney. It is an irregular shaped site, which is located at a meander in the River Lea - this results in a site frontage which is exposed to the river to the north west, west and south west. The site is to the northeast of the Leabridge Road and vehicular access is provided from it. To the west of the site is the Lee Valley Ice Centre and its car park. Beyond this is open land which is part of the Lee Valley Regional Park.

1.2 To the eastern side of the River Lea and immediate adjacent is the North Millfields Recreational Ground. To the north of this is Latham's Yard, a recent residential development of circa 6-storeys.

1.3 The site is currently used for open storage, including shipping containers and vehicles.

2. CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

2.1 The existing site is not within a conservation area, and nor does it adjoin a conservation area within the London Borough of Hackney. The site does lie close to the North Millfields Recreational Ground which is designation as: Metropolitan Open Land, and an Area of Special Landscape Character within the 1995 Unitary Development Plan. The site is also part of the Lee Valley Regional Park.

2.2 Leabridge Road, from the point where it adjoins the boundary with LB Waltham Forest and leading to the west is identified as a 'Green Link' in the UDP 1995,

3. HISTORY

3.1 A planning application has previously been submitted for the redevelopment of the site to the LB of Waltham Forest in September 2008 (LBWF ref: 2007/2341). The description of development was: Residential redevelopment - Demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate building blocks rising to seven storeys in Page 244 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 height comprising 167 residential units (31 x 1 bed, 97 x 2 bed, 30 x 3 bed and 9 x 4 bed flats) (Use Class C3). Provision of 103 car parking spaces (91 within a basement and 12 surface), cycle parking, refuse storage areas, associated landscaping and improvements to existing vehicle and pedestrian access to the site from Lea Bridge Road LB Hackney were consulted on the application and raised objection for the following reasons (LBH ref: 2008/0046): The proposal, by reason of its scale and massing, would adversely affect the visual amenity, character and appearance of the streetscene and would be contrary to the provisions of Policies EQ1 'Development Requirements' and Policy TR19 'Planning Standards' of the Hackney Unitary Development 1995 and Policy 4B.1 'Design Principles for a Compact City' of the London Plan 200

4. This application was refused permission, and an appeal was subsequently dismissed. A summary of the reasons that LB Waltham Forest refused the application is as follows:

1. The proposed development fails to maximise opportunities for achieving a high quality development, by virtue of the unsatisfactory block layout which would appear predominantly as a continuous block which would fail to achieve the submitted design rationale of providing visual permeability which coupled with a lack of variety and articulation of the elevations and the roofscape would result in an over dominant visual impact on the river frontage at a prominent ''gateway'' location at the entrance to the Borough. In addition the choice of materials and massing of the blocks would compound the visual impact of the development in the immediate vicinity of the site and from further afield.

2. The high density of the proposed development results in a significant number of single aspect units with a north/north easterly orientation fails to fully respond to the advantages of its riverside and parkland location for achieving the highest quality living accommodation. The orientation of those flats would fail to maximise the full potential of the site and its surroundings to provide maximum levels of outlook and aspect including alternative views for future occupiers of those units and to provide varying levels of light and sunlight.

3. The high density of development proposed is likely to have a significant impact on the local transport network, including public transport facilities. Without a legal agreement to ensure that a suitable financial contribution is secured in order to mitigate the impact of such a high density development on the local transport network, upgrading off site pedestrian links and cycle routes and improving connectivity between the development and local transport interchanges, particularly Clapton Station the proposal would fail to sufficiently improve the accessibility of the site to assist in decreasing car dependence.

Page 245 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010

4. The proposals at such a high density would have adverse implications for the amenity value of the adjoining land, particularly within the Lee Valley Regional Park. Without a legal agreement to ensure that a suitable financial contribution is secured towards implementing environmental improvements such as tree planting, nature conservation enhancements and improvements to open space in the local area and in particular within the Lee Valley Park the proposal would fail to sufficiently mitigate the impact of such a high density development for the benefit of the local community, visitors and the future occupiers of the development.

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 The application is not subject to consultation with local residents or statutory consultees by LB Hackney. Consultation is undertaken by LB Waltham Forest. Nevertheless, representations have been received, and relevant internal departments have been consulted as detailed below.

4.2 Local Interest Groups

4.3 The Lee Valley Federation and Millfields Users' Group have provided copies of their objections to the application which have gone directly to the LB Waltham Forest. These raise detailed concerns regarding the principle of the development of the site, as well as the detailed design, including its inappropriateness in terms of the local context, height, massing, scale, and visual permeability.

4.4 Lea Bridge Ward Councillors

4.5 Councillors Rathbone, Kelly and Oguzkanli have written a joint letter in objection to the proposal. This requests that LB Hackney 'submit vigorous and robust objection … to this obtrusive and unnecessary development'. It also offers support to other groups that are understood to be objecting to the proposal (including Millfields Users Group and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority). A summary of the reasons for objecting is as follows: - The proposal is unsightly, lacking in character, and significantly altering the waterfront and the River Lea itself, to the detriment of residents and nature; - There has been a lack of consultation. The developer concerned has not made contact with us or other residents nearby on the opposite side of the river; - A more co-ordinate approach (via a working group) should be undertaken to planning applications along the River Lea; - The proposal is contrary to LB Waltham Forest “Issues and Options Consultation” (July 2009) to inform the development of an Area Action Plan for Lea Bridge. This included an option for the redevelopment of Essex Wharf for Leisure uses associated with the river; - Proposal would block and significantly alter the view to the East from the park, and will impact on services in Hackney, including schools, buses, Page 246 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 and hospital, being closer than services within LB Waltham Forest (this was as identified in the Planning Inspectorate's decision). - The proposal does not provide any notable “visual permeability”. There are only small gaps between the buildings. This means that selected views from Millfields on a precise axis with the gaps would have the perception (just about) that there is greenery on the far side of the buildings. If one is not on an axis with these narrow gaps, the development presents as a continuous barrier with no inter-visibility at all. The scheme will therefore substantially complete the enclosure of North Millfields Recreation Ground - something which the Planning Inspector was concerned to avoid; - The scheme is higher both than the previous scheme and the highest blocks on the former Lathams site to the west of the river and which (unlike the proposed scheme) lies outside the Regional Park. The Inspector's objection to the previous scheme that it would “tower over the river and would dominate the riverside walks on the opposite bank” applies in greater measure to the new scheme; - The new scheme presents a highly intensive urban development which, far from melding the disparate elements of the park - the formal parkland of Millfields and the open land to the east - breaks the continuity of the Park and reduces its “legibility”. A barrier to Regional Park entry would be created were this proposed development added to those recently built to the west of the river; - Despite the differences in design, the new scheme no better respects nor enhances the landscape of the river than the previous scheme objected to by the Inspector; - The Density of the development would be excessive, exceeding the guidance outlined in the London Plan; - The distance from amenities means that for practical purposes, the great majority of movements to any facilities will be by vehicle. Although there are quite good bus services, a great many of these movements will be car. All vehicular movements will necessarily discharge from the development on to one road, Leabridge Road, which is already grossly congested; - The proposed development - consciously echoing the developments on the Latham's site - changes the character of the River. The Planning Inspector stated that the wide meander of the River creates a special character and grandeur which is part of the attraction of Millfields Park. We share the view of the Inspector that the first scheme would have greatly detracted from the character and landscape of the River and - despite the differences of design - we think that the same can be said of the new scheme.

4.6 Other Council Departments

4.7 Sustainability and Design Team: The site is located at a prominent corner of the curved river bank around Leebridge Road. Due to this special location and the large green open space (North Mill Fields) opposite the river, the visual effects of the proposed buildings Page 247 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 will be very important as the buildings can be seen in a long distance along the river and from the west of the site. While it is appreciated that the massing is broken into four blocks to provide better visual permeability, the insensitive orientation and elevation design of the proposed buildings create angled 'gap' space and unfriendly 'flank' facades. It also creates some bulky facades which fail to provide friendly scale and window openings. Therefore, the scheme will create negative visual impacts on the views from the river side, North Mill Fields, and Lee Bridge Road.

4.8 Transportation: In terms of the transport aspects of the development proposal, the Highways and Transport Department has two main concerns - the impact on traffic in Lea Bridge Road and the potential increased parking stress on LBH adopted highways adjoining the development - Oatley Terrace and Hillstowe Street. Trip Generation/Traffic Impact The Trip Generation analysis undertaken in the Transport Assessment (TA) examines the traffic changes in Lea Bridge Road and concludes that there will be a net increase of less than one per cent during the peak traffic periods. The methodology employed for assessing the trip generation accords with Transport for London (TfL) TA guidance and is therefore acceptable. The TA also includes a letter from TfL which confirms that TfL accepts the TA conclusion that the development proposal will not affect the operation of the Statutory Road Network (SRN). However, a formal consultation response which supports the development proposal in transport terms should be obtained from TfL [NB: This would be undertaken as part of LB Waltham Forest's consultation process]. Parking Provision The other major concern which the Highways and Transport Department has is the potential increase in parking stress on LBH adjoining roads within reach of the development. Oatley Terrace and Hillstowe Street are within 200m of the site and are non-Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) streets. Therefore, if sufficient on-site parking is not provided, there could be a significant level of over-spill parking generated by the development, most of which would be in Oatley Terrace, Hillstowe Street and to some extent Chatsworth Road and Leagrave Street. The TA includes an explanation of the methodology applied in determining the appropriate level of parking provision. The proposed level of 70 parking places is approximately 49% of the residential units. This level of parking matches the expected parking demand generated by the development (based on the level of car ownership in the LBH ward adjoining the site and the LBWF ward where the development is located - 51% and 57% respectively) and therefore is less likely to bring about a significant amount of over-spill parking on the adjoining LBH roads. The parking provision does not necessarily maximise the site's accessibility to public transport, in line with London Plan Policy 3C.2

2. The PTAL is 2/ 3 but the site has very good access to several bus routes in Lea Bridge Road, which connects directly to rail stations such as Clapton and Hackney Central and underground stations such as Liverpool Street. Page 248 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 Walking/ Cycling Improvements London Plan Policy 3C.21 and 3C.22 promotes improved conditions for walking and cycling and requires that new developments ensure that safe and secure, direct, high-quality pedestrian/ cycle links are provided to public transport nodes and key land-uses. The policies specifically identify the need to improve London's strategic walking and cycling routes. The development is situated adjacent to one of the London Strategic Walking/ Cycle Routes which run along the Lea Navigation and adjacent to Millfields Park. The predicted two-way trip generation for walking, public transport and cycling combined is 790. The Council has identified specific improvements in the Draft Millfields Park Masterplan, which are aimed at enhancing the walking/ cycling conditions and the urban realm along the Lea Navigation and Millfields Park. Some funding has been identified for these improvements but the Council seeks additional funding towards the urban realm (in Millfields Park directly opposite the development) and improved walking and cycling conditions along the Lea Navigation (the section between Millfields Road and Lea Bridge Road). Therefore, the Highways and Transport Department, requests an s.106 contribution towards “Project 9 Phase 1 and/or Phase 2” (£85k and £134k respectively), which entails the upgrading (construction of a new path in parts) of the existing walking/cycle path through Millfields Park South and upgrading of the existing Greenway path along the Lea Navigation.

4.9 Parks Services: Comments are awaited, and will be reported at the committee meeting.

5. POLICIES

5.1 Hackney Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (1995) (saved policies) EQ1 - Development Requirements EQ30 - Areas of Special Landscape Character TR19 - Planning Standards (Transport) OS1 - Enhancing Metropolitan Open Land OS5 - Development Affecting Open Space and Parks OS6 - Green Chains and Links OS9 - Recreational Footpaths, Towing Paths, Cyclepaths and Bridleways

5.2 London Plan 2008 (Consolidated with Changes since 2004) 3C.1 - Integrating Transport and Development 3C.2 - Matching Development to Transport Capacity 3C.3 - Sustainable Transport in London 3C.21 - Improving conditions for Walking 3C.22 - Improving conditions for Cycling 4B.1 - Design Principles for a Compact City

6. COMMENT Page 249 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010

6.1 Proposal

6.

1.1 Planning permission is sought from the London Borough of Waltham Forest, for a development of 4 blocks of residential development of between 5 and 9 storeys. The buildings are orientated to address the River Lee to the north west, and south west, and broadly mirror the bend in the river.

6.

1.2 The proposal includes a basement level/ground floor podium which accommodates car parking. The tallest part of the proposal, which is a 9-storey 'tower', is located to the north. There are then 'gaps' in the built form between the blocks to the south, one of which is 7-storey, one 5-storey, one 8-storey. The buildings are generally brick-built, which elements of light render, and projecting balcony features. The upper floors are set-back from the main front elevations at some parts of the blocks.

6.

1.3 The proposal differs in its design intent and form from the previous application. These can be briefly summarised as follows: - • The number of blocks has been increased by one from three to four. This allows for an extra gap to be created between blocks; • The building height, and level of set-back to the upper floors, across the site is varied between the blocks as opposed to the single height (of 7-storeys) and uniformed form previously proposed across all blocks; • The buildings are generally set-back a further difference from the River Lea.

6.2 Considerations

6.

2.1 The main considerations relevant to this application are: a. Impact of the scale, design and appearance of the proposed development b. Potential impact on the amenity of nearby residents c. Transport impact, cycle and walking d. Response to Ward Councillors objections

6.

2.2 Each of these considerations is discussed in turn below. a. Impact of the scale, design and appearance of the proposed development

6.2.3 It is considered that the proposal, even with the notable re-design, does not address the underlining concerns with the development of the site previously raised as a reason for objecting. Whilst the further sub-division of the development into four blocks allows for increased views and aspects through the buildings, the opportunities for these still remain limited. This is because the 'gaps' between the blocks are relatively small in the context of the whole elevation proposed for the site and that addresses the River and Millfields Park. The proposed approach also results in exposing large, uninteresting flank elevations to views from the opposite side of the River Lea. This is illustrated in Page 250 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 the applicant's 'view analysis' (submitted as part of the Design and Access Statement) which includes a view from the north (looking towards the south flank elevation of the northern most building) and from three points from the opposite side of the River Lea along the towpath. This analysis focuses on how at these points the design and layout is likely to increase the visual permeability across the site. However there would still remain numerous views (in-between the chosen viewpoints) at which the development would appear as a largely unbroken built-form.

6.

2.4 The proposed building height, and massing, is also out of context with the surrounding area. Whilst there are buildings to the north of the site on the opposite side of the River (Latham's Yard) of a comparable height and scale, due to the separation between the sites, the bend in the River, and the orientation of the existing buildings and proposed buildings, there would be limited opportunities for these to be read within the same context. Given the above the proposal would therefore appear out-of-context with the general area, and would impact on, and would appear as a crude interruption to, the open character established to the west by Millfields North and to the east by the Lee Valley Regional Park, and the character of the waterside of the River Lea.

6.

2.5 Furthermore, whilst the previous proposal was still considered unacceptable in terms of its height and massing it is considered that the current proposal does not match it in terms of its design quality and elevational treatment. The elevations proposed are uninteresting and poorly proportioned, with unsophisticated use of materials. This would add to the concerns identified above with regards to the massing and height of the proposal. b. Potential impact on the amenity of nearby residents

6.

2.6 The site is positioned a notable distance from any residential properties within the LB Hackney, and as such is unlikely to have any direct impact on the amenity of residents of the Borough in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight, outlook or privacy. As detailed above, due to the concerns of the visual impact of the proposal it will impact on general visual amenity to residents of the Borough, including users of the Millfields North. c. Transport impact

6.

2.7 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application has been reviewed by the officer's in the Council's Highways & Transportation department. It is considered that this sufficiently identifies that the proposed increase in traffic entering and leaving the site will not significantly impact on the level traffic currently experienced on Leabridge Road. Therefore, the proposal will not impact on the highways network of the LB Hackney.

6.

2.8 The proposal also provides a level of parking that appears to be appropriate to a site with a modest accessibility to public transport, being equivalent to the level of car ownership in the area. Given this, whilst there is the potential for some overspill parking from the development utilising streets within LB Hackney, this is likely to be limited as demand for car parking appears to be Page 251 Planning Sub-Committee -0

3.0

2.2010 have been met on site. As such, this is not considered sufficient justification for objecting to the proposal.

6.2.9 It is considered that the proposal will impact on the strategic cycle and walking routes which are to the west of the site and within the LB Hackney (including the Lee Valley Walk identified in the London Plan). This is because of the how close the site is to these, and because of the significant increase in the number of residents and movements associated with the development. This impact could be mitigated by a contribution towards the physical enhancement and improvement of these, and as detailed in the comments of officer's in the Council's Highways and Transportation department. d. Response to comments raised by the Ward Councillors

6.2.10 In the main, the emphasis of the objections raised in relation to the height, massing, design and visual permeability of the proposal are supported (and as detailed above at paragraph

6.2.3 to 2.6).6.2.11 A number of issues raised are matters which it would not be appropriate for LB Hackney to response to, as they are not strategic cross boundary issues (e.g. land use). These reasons for objecting would be considered in line with local planning policies of LB Waltham Forest.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons detailed above the proposal would not significantly impact on traffic and transport within LB Hackney, and would not impact on the amenity enjoyed by residents within LB Hackney. Therefore, no objection to the proposal is raised on these grounds.

7.2 However, it is considered that the proposal would have a significant and notable impact on the visual amenity of the area and it would be appropriate to object to the proposal on these grounds. In addition, the proposal would impact on the nearby strategic cycle and walking due to the increase pressure on these resulting from the development. A contribution to these works may mitigate this impact.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation A

8.2 That the London Borough of Hackney OBJECTS to the application (LBWF ref: 2009/1515), for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its excessive scale and massing, poor design quality, and limited opportunities for visual permeability across the site, would adversely affect the visual amenity, character and appearance of the River Lea and North Milfields Recreational Ground (as an Area of Special Landscape Character and Metropolitan Open Land), and wider area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies EQ1 'Development Requirements', EQ30 Page 252 Planning Sub-Committee -03.02.2010 'Areas of Special Landscape Character', OS1 'Enhancing Metropolitan Open Land', OS5 'Development Affecting Open Space and Parks' and OS6 'Green Chains and Links' of the Hackney Unitary Development 1995 and Policy 4B.1 'Design Principles for a Compact City' of the London Plan 2008 (consolidated with alterations to the London Plan 2004).

2. The proposal, by reason of its size and increase in the number of cycle and walking movements, would have an adverse impact on the quality and amenity value of the adjoining cycle and walking routes. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure suitable financial contributions towards implementing improvements and enhancements to existing cycle and walking routes the proposal would be contrary to policy OS9 'Recreational Footpaths, Towing Paths, Cyclepaths and Bridleways' of the Hackney Unitary Development 1995, and policies 3C.21 'Improving conditions for Walking' and 3C.22 'Improving conditions for Cycling' of the London Plan 2008 (consolidated with alterations to the London Plan 2004). Date: 25 January 2010 Stephen Douglas Interim DIRECTOR, NEIGHBOURHOODS & REGENERATION

1. Hackney UDP (1995) and the London Plan Ian Bailey (020 8356 8442) 2 Hillman Street, London E8 1FB Page 253 Page 254 This page is intentionally left blank