Quality Management - IEMA Whitechapel... · 1.3.2. To the north is the greater part of the London...

The Whitechapel Estate

Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary

1 | 1

Cross Property Investment SARL and

Cross Property Investment West SARL

October 2015

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3

Remarks

Date October 2015

Prepared by Michael Haydock

Signature

Checked by Karen McAllister

Signature

Authorised by Karen McAllister

Signature

Project number 62006025

File reference \\uk.wspgroup.com\ukcen

tral\Environmental\Enviro

nmental Planning

London\03. Projects\02.

EIA Projects\62002065 -

Whitechapel Estate\5.

Reporting\2. ES\Vol. 4

NTS



1 | 2



October 2015

Whitechapel Estate

Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement

October 2015

Registered Address

WSP UK Ltd

01383511

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF



1 | 3



October 2015

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................... 4

2 What is proposed? .................................................................... 9

3 Environmental Effects ............................................................. 17



1 | 4



October 2015

1 Introduction 1.1.1 Cross Property Investment SARL and Cross Property Investment West SARL are applying for detailed

planning permission for a residential led mixed use development on the 1.27 hectare (ha) Site at the

Whitechapel Estate, located with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The application as submitted

proposes :

“Demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 12 buildings ranging from ground plus 2

– 23 storeys, comprising 470 residential dwellings (Class C3), specialist accommodation, office floorspace

(Class B1), flexible office and non-residential institution floorspace (Class B1/D1), retail floorspace (Class

A1-A3), car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.”

1.1.2 The development for which permission is sought is described in detail in the Planning Statement and

Design and Access Statement which are submitted in support of the planning application. The Design and

Access Statement confirms how the design aspirations for the development has been achieved and describes

the key design principles and initial development concept which informed the design work.

1.1.3 Figure 1 below shows the location and extent of the Proposed Development outlined in red.

Figure 1: Site Location



1 | 5



October 2015

1.2 The Site

1.2.1 The Site extends to 1.27ha and is relatively flat, with spot heights of 12.8m Above Ordnance Datum

(AOD) in the centre of Turner Street to the southwest and 12.0m AOD in the centre of Ashfield Street to the

northeast.

1.2.2 The Site is bounded in part by Newark Street and Ashfield Road to the north, residential properties off

Cavell Street to the east, Varden Street to the South and Turner Street to the west. The Site is currently

occupied by residential, office and other mixed-use properties and is divided in a north south direction by a

pedestrianised and landscaped area (Philpot Street) and is part bisected in an east west direction by Walden

Street.

1.2.3 The northern part of the Site lies in part within the London Hospital Conservation Area. There are no

listed buildings on the Site, however part of the Myrdle Street Conservation Area is located within the redline

boundary in the south western corner of the Site.

1.2.4 The central part of the Site comprises areas of soft landscaping and pathways as well as the ten storey

John Harrison House. Temporary modular structures used by the hospital for ancillary services are located to

the east of John Harrison House.

1.2.5 There are six residential blocks in the western and south-western parts of the Site. The blocks are

named Clare Alexander House, Hubert Ashton House, Henry Briarly House, Kent House, Dawson House and

Horace Evans House. All were constructed in the 1960’s and are between five and seven storeys. The ground

floor of the blocks is set approximately 1m below surrounding ground level.

1.2.6 The Site is located within the Tower Hamlets Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which covers the

whole borough and the pollutants declared relate to nitrogen dioxide NO2 (Annual Mean) and Particulate Matter

PM10 (24-Hour Mean). The source of pollution for the AQMA is identified as unspecified road transport.

1.3 Overview of the Surrounding Area

1.3.1. The area immediately surrounding the Site includes the wider Royal London Hospital Campus, several

housing estates and a number of public open spaces / playing fields. There are also eight schools (6 Primary

and 2 Secondary) in the immediate area, the closest being Mulberry School for Girls Secondary School located

to the south of Commercial Road.

1.3.2. To the north is the greater part of the London Hospital Conservation Area, while to the east and west

are the Ford Square & Sidney Square and Myrdle Street Conservation Areas.

1.3.3. The Grade II Listed Royal London Hospital which serves London’s Air Ambulance is located to the

north. The roof top helipad is located towards the south-eastern corner of the Royal London Hospital,

approximately 120m from the Site boundary at the closest point.

1.3.4. The Grade II* listed St Augustine's Church is located approximately 55m to the north of the Site

boundary. There are a number of Grade II listed buildings surrounding the Site including: 39-49 Walden Street,

43-69 Philpot Street, 46 and 48 Ashfield Street, 1 Nelson Street, 10-16 New Road, 24-32 New Road, 2-16

Walden Street, 28 Newark Street, 30-32 Newark Street, 34 Newark Street, 36 and 36a Newark Street, 38

Newark Street, 40 and 42 Newark Street, 18-34 Mount Terrace, 138-142 Whitechapel Road.

1.3.5. There are also a number of locally listed buildings in close proximity to the Site, the relevant ones being

39-43 Ashfield Street, 81-87 Cavell Street, 30-33 Ford Square and 18-20 New Road.

1.3.6. The nearest statutory designated site is Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park, located 2km to the northeast

of the Site, which is designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR).



1 | 6



October 2015

1.3.7. The nearest watercourse is the River Thames located 1km south of the Site. The Site is located within

Flood Zone 1, where the annual probability of flooding is 1 in 1,000.

1.4 The Purpose of this Document

1.4.1. This document is a Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted

with the planning application. The purpose of this NTS is to present a summary of the findings of the EIA

process in non-technical language compliant with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (the ‘EIA Regulations’) which require that before planning

permission is granted, for certain types of development, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be

undertaken that identifies the likely significant environmental effects of a development and suggests ways in

which any significant negative effects on the environment can be prevented, reduced and/or offset.

1.4.2. Given the nature of the Proposed Development, an EIA was undertaken of the likely significant

environmental effects of the development on the environment including demolition/construction works and the

completed development. The ES (including baseline information, survey information and technical

assessments) submitted with the application presents the findings of the EIA process, the scope of which was

agreed with the Council as part of a scoping exercise, in direct consultation with a number of consultees.

1.4.3. The ES is based on the total extent of the Proposed Development, as defined by the application plans

and documents submitted for approval with the application..

1.4.4. This NTS is presented as a series of key questions and answers regarding the Proposed Development

and identifies the likely significant environmental effects of the development and describes how any significant

negative effects are proposed to be mitigated, prevented and/or offset during the construction and future

operation of the completed development. Both the ES and the NTS are publicly available for anyone to review

to understand the nature and form of the Proposed Development.

1.4.5. The Project Team appointed by the Applicant to prepare the submitted planning application is

confirmed in the Table 1.

Table 1: Project Team

Team Member Role

Londonewcastle

Development Manager on behalf of the Applicant :

Cross Property Investment SARL; and


DP9

Planning Consultant

PLP

Masterplan and Plot Architects (A, E, F, G, Ha & Hb and I)

Adjaye Associates

Plot Architects (B1 & B2, C and D1 & D2)

http://www.dp9.co.uk/index.htm



1 | 7



October 2015

Team Member Role

Tom Stuart-Smith

Landscape Architects

Miller Hare

Accurate Visual Representations

Richard Coleman Citydesigner

Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impacts

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

EIA Project Management & Co-ordination, Transportation

and Access, Local Air Quality, Noise and Vibration,

Archaeology, Water Resources and Flood Risk, Ground

Conditions and Contamination, Socio-Economics,

Telecommunications, Waste Management, Construction

Environmental Management Plan.

Delva Patman Redler

Daylight Sunlight and Overshadowing

Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin

Environmental Wind

Waterman Group

Ecology and Arboriculture

Scotch Partners

Sustainability and Energy Strategy

AKTII

Structural Engineers

EC Harris Cost Consultants

http://www.watermangroup.com/

http://scotchpartners.com/index.html



1 | 8



October 2015

Team Member Role

BNP Paribas

Viability Consultants

Nudge Factory

Public Relations Consultant

Quatro

Public Relations Consultant

http://www.echarris.com/default.aspx



1 | 9



October 2015

2 What is proposed?

2.1 Background and Context

2.1.1. The Site is identified in the Whitechapel Vision Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD),

which states the regeneration of the area will result in the provision of at least 3,500 new homes. The need for

development of the sites identified in the SPD, is focused primarily around the need to regenerate the

Whitechapel Estate and deliver a new vibrant and sustainable neighbourhood that contains well-designed new

homes. This Site is one of the largest within the Whitechapel Vision Masterplan Area, and provides the

opportunity for the Applicant to meet the needs of the borough. . It is likely that if the current application were

not approved, similar, alternative proposals would be submitted for the Site.

2.2 The Proposed Development

2.2.1. The application for the Proposed Development, as prepared and submitted by the Applicant, is for a

residential-led, mixed use development, constituting the following:

“Demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 12 buildings ranging from ground

plus 2 – 23 storeys, comprising 470 residential dwellings (Class C3), specialist accommodation, office

floorspace (Class B1), flexible office and non-residential institution floorspace (Class B1/D1), retail

floorspace (Class A1-A3), car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated

works.”

2.2.2. The proposed quantum mix, total units and proposed housing mix, non-residential space and open

space for the Proposed Development are outlined in detail in Table 2 and 3 below.

Table 2: Proposed Housing Mix

Tenure Unit Type

Total Units Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed

Private

Block B1 0 12 9 4 0 25

Block B2 0 9 4 2 0 15

Block D1 3 11 15 2 0 31

Block D2 0 0 0 6 0 6

Block E 3 52 25 8 0 88

Block Ha 0 4 4 4 0 12

Block I 8 82 52 7 0 149

Sub-Total 14 170 109 33 0 326

Affordable (Shared Ownership)

Block A 0 5 4 2 0 11

Sub-Total 0 5 4 2 0 11

Affordable (Social Rented)

Block F 0 5 7 3 2 17



1 | 10



October 2015

Tenure Unit Type

Total Units Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed

Block G 0 10 19 4 0 33

Sub-Total 0 15 26 7 2 50

Specialist Accommodation

Block C 70 4 0 8 1 83

Sub-Total 70 4 0 8 1 83

TOTAL 84 194 139 50 3 470

Non-Residential Provision

2.1.2. The Proposed Development will provide 4,123m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA) of commercial and retail

floor space. The amount to be provided for each use is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Non-Residential Provision

Use Class (GIA (m2))

Total A1 – A3 B1 / D1

648 3,475 4,123

Heights and Layout

2.1.3. The development layout is arranged in 12 Blocks (A, B1 & B2, C, D1 & D2, E, F, G, Ha & Hb and I)

ranging in height from 2 to 23 Storeys (Block I).

2.1.4. From an architectural perspective the eastern and western portion of the Site has been treated

differently. The main bulk of the Proposed Development is located near to the London Royal Hospital to the

east – the proposed tall buildings (Blocks E and I) will mediate between the hospital and the existing residential

buildings to the south of the Site.

2.1.5. The proposed buildings to the west of the Site range in height between 4 and 8 storeys and to relate to

the height of the surrounding existing buildings.

Public and Private Open Space

2.1.6. A sequence of high quality public and private open spaces will be created to provide a safe, green,

attractive and fully accessible environment for residents and a local destination for people living and working in

the area.

2.1.7. The Site is split into three distinct areas of the Green Spine, west garden and east garden as described

below with further details on public and private open space and the proposed plant combinations contained

within the Design and Access Statement and shown on the landscape plans.

2.1.8. The existing ‘Green Spine’ is one of London Borough of Tower hamlets’ key initiatives highlighted in the

Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD and is a pedestrianized green open space which although partly privately

owned will be publicly accessible and will be reinforced as a key focus of the development. It will act as an

important element used to reconnect the development to the city and will provide a connection from

Whitechapel High Street to Commercial Street. It will be lit at night and planted to allow natural surveillance

from adjoining buildings.



1 | 11



October 2015

2.1.9. The aim is for the Green Spine to be a popular route and also a place to gather and rest during night

and day, weekdays and weekends. Within the ‘Green Spine’ there will be informal play spaces, multi use

seating, paths planting and trees. The high quality paving will provides clear and level access throughout; all

paths are a minimum of 1.2m to allow ease of wheelchair access. Seating will be inclusive providing space for

those able bodied and those with disabilities.

2.1.10. The west garden will be semi-private and will enhance the public realm. The proposed ‘cafe space’

situated around Blocks D1 & D2 and E will help to make this a key node and gathering space. From here a

network of paths and planting offer the user a choice of routes from north to south or east to west, allowing

access to any building. The western garden will be open to the public during the day and secured at night.

2.1.11. The east garden will be private and for the enjoyment of the residents. It will be surrounded by

buildings forming a semiprivate courtyard for use by future residents and will however be open for public use

during the day. To the west, the through route to New Street will be maintained. There will be gates on both the

east and west boundaries to make this a semi private space at night and publicly accessible during the day.

2.1.12. Varying heights of planting will provide open spaces and subdivide spaces while providing privacy for

buildings. Lawns and meadow planting will provide easily accessible spaces with good natural surveillance

while maintaining a high percentage of green. The development will create areas of shade, which will vary

between different times of day and different times of year. This shade has been plotted on the landscape plan

and has influenced the choice of location of open gathering spaces, areas of play and key routes, as well as

spaces of denser planting, screen planting and areas for shaded seating.

2.1.13. Tree planting along the ‘Green Spine’ will be linked by trees planted within the eastern and western

Courtyard, providing a green corridor of tree canopies, a second green corridor will be achieved at ground level

by block planting and mature hedges of British native species. A cover of green / brown roofs and roof terraces

provide a further green corridor at roof level. Provision of climbing wires to facades will help link planting at

street level to planting on the roof terraces.

2.1.14. There will be an emphasis on British native species, choosing plant combinations with ecological

benefits in mind. Plant combinations will be chosen to provide interest and foraging during each season, to

extend flowering and vegetation periods. Perennial stems will be cut back as new shoots arrive. As well as

using British natives, plants of known ecological value will further boost food sources for fauna.

Cycle Access and Parking

2.1.15. The Site is well located in terms of cycling with established routes provided within the Whitechapel

area. Specifically, the available cycle network in and around the Site includes the following:

■ Cycle Superhighway 2 runs along Whitechapel Road, providing a cycle route from Aldgate to Bow;

■ Cycle Superhighway 3 runs along Cable Street past Shadwell DLR Station, linking Tower Gateway with

Barking;

■ New Road designated as a route recommended for cyclists on a mixture of quiet and busy roads.

2.1.16. Covered and secure on-site cycle parking will be provided in accordance with London Plan cycle

parking standards. In total, 658 cycle parking spaces will be provided with the Proposed Development. There

will be a provision of 560 residential cycle spaces , 74 cycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the

Specialist Accommodation and a total of 24 office cycle parking spaces will be provided in the basement of

Block Hb with access provided from Ashfield Street.



1 | 12



October 2015

Car Parking and Vehicular Access

2.1.17. Car parking is to be provided within the basement, accessed from Varden Street close to the southeast

corner of the Site. A total of 41 parking bays are to be provided in the basement of which 13 will be for disabled

users. Electric charging points would be available in line with London Plan guidelines.

2.1.18. Parking is provided at a ratio of 0.087 and includes the appropriate amount of disabled and electric

parking bays. Swept path analysis has been undertaken to ensure the necessary vehicle movements can be

made.

Servicing and Refuse Collection

2.1.19. A servicing and waste management strategy has been produced for the Proposed Development and

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Waste Officer has been contacted to discuss requirements for waste

vehicles. Swept path analysis have been undertaken to ensure the necessary vehicle movements can be made

and ensure waste vehicles are able to wait within 10m of proposed bin stores.

2.1.20. Delivery vehicles are likely to be accommodated within proposed on-site laybys, which will act as drop

off points from Ashfield Street and Varden Street.

2.1.21. Further details on servicing and refuse collection can be found in the Waste Management Plan

prepared by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Materials

2.1.22. One of the four key design principles adopted for the redevelopment of the Site is the use of high

quality materials to correspond with existing buildings.

2.1.23. The design of the buildings and use of materials has been influenced by the materials, textures and

proportions of surrounding buildings and seeks to complement them with a modern interpretation of traditional

elements. The use of brick as the main material on the facades of the lower blocks retains the variety of colour

and texture that is prevalent around the local area and helps give its character. The cast masonry used on the

other buildings also retains the variety of colour and texture prevalent around the local area.

2.1.24. Further details on the proposed heights and massing can be found in the accompanying Design and

Access Statement prepared by PLP and Adjaye Associates.

Sustainable Design

2.1.25. The Proposed Development incorporates a number of sustainable design measures, which are

summarised as follows:

■ Low carbon design which exceeds the minimum requirements of the Building Regulations;

■ Energy efficiency measures and passive design;

■ Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through the use of centralised mini gas Combined Heat and Power

(CHP) with thermal storage and supplementary natural gas boilers. The aspiration is to meet the London

Plan target of 35% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions against Part L Building Regulations 2013 if viable

to do so, with regard for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets target of 45% in accordance with Policy

DM29 of the of the Managing Development Document DPD;

■ Water re-use through centralised greywater treatment and recycling systems as well as the provision of

water efficient devices (sanitary ware and white goods) to reduce water consumption in accordance with

Policy SP04 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM13 of the Managing Development Document DPD;

■ Priority will be given to the selection of construction materials with low environmental impact;



1 | 13



October 2015

■ Provision of green / brown roofs on Blocks A, B1 & B2, C, D, F, G and Ha;

■ The Proposed Development will deliver a mixed use development in a highly accessible location in close

proximity to excellent public transport links, shops and services;

■ The Proposed Development will meet the principles of inclusive design in accordance with Policy DM23 of

the Managing Development Document DPD; and

■ The commercial building will achieve BREEAM ‘Excellent’ in accordance with Policy DM29 of the Managing

Development Document DPD. The residential units are designed to align with a Code for Sustainable

Homes Level 4 dwelling.

2.3 How has the design of the Proposed Development evolved over time?

2.3.1. As part of the evolution of the Proposed Development, as now defined in the application plans, detailed

consideration was given to the existing environmental constraints and opportunities both within the Site and

the surrounding area, to inform the land uses, nature, scale and massing and proposed layout of the built form

and the areas of open space and public realm. Such considerations have occurred over a period of time in the

context of relevant national and local planning policies, best practice guidance and development standards as

operated by London Borough of Tower Hamlets and other decision making bodies.

2.3.2. The over-arching objective has been to ensure the creation of a deliverable, sustainable development,

as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which responds to local needs, environmental

conditions and the Site context, and Local Development Framework policies and objectives.

2.3.3. The design evolution has been an iterative process that has been informed by the baseline studies for

the EIA and where practicable, measures to mitigate likely significant negative environmental effects are now

inherent in the application plans assessed in this ES.

2.3.4. The evolution of the layout, scale and appearance of the built form is set out below (Figure 3.1a - 3.1g)

and in the Design and Access Statement.

2.3.5. The layout, scale and massing of the Proposed Development was developed over an 18 month period

from October 2013 and was informed by key elements of Site context and urban grain, with the height, massing

and orientation of blocks dictated by an understanding of the Site’s constraints.

2.3.6. The Applicants selected the proposed design, taking account of factors such as sunlight and daylight,

townscape and technical issues raised during meetings and consultation with officers at London Borough of

Tower Hamlets, The Mayor of Tower Hamlets, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Historic England, from

November 2013; Public consultations were also held in August 2014 and December 2014 and with

stakeholders including BDP Architects who are the authors of the Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD.

2.3.7. The design objectives are:

■ Create a sequence of open spaces, each with its own distinct character and use, whilst establishing a clear

identity for the new Green Spine for the benefit and enjoyment of the community;

■ Introduce a range of differing building heights, with the tallest building reflecting the height of the Royal

London Hospital, the second tallest will act as a landmark for the Site and the lower buildings respond more

to the context of the surrounding streets;



1 | 14



October 2015

■ The design of the buildings and use of materials will be influenced by the materials, textures and

proportions of surrounding buildings and seeks to complement them with a modern interpretation of

traditional elements; and

■ Optimise the balance of open space and built-form by designing taller elements with smaller footprints, this

allows for the creation of larger open spaces, whilst contributing significantly towards providing new homes

for the area.

2.3.8. The existing buildings on the site are generally low to medium rise residential purpose built blocks

dating from the 1960’s and 1970’s. The buildings are of low quality and offer little to the street scape.

2.3.9. The early proposals introduced a range of building heights, with the majority of the massing being

located in the Eastern Quarter adjacent to the hospital which allows the massing to the West to be lower and

have less impact on the surrounding urban fabric.

2.3.10. Extensive landscape was envisaged for both the Eastern and Western Quarter as a result of the

introduction of the tall buildings.

2.3.11. During a consultation with the Council on 7th April 2014; officers expressed concern over the height of

the tallest tower. They felt in the form it presented was too tall and the height should be revisited by reference

to further analysis of key views and the impact upon heritage assets. Officers accepted that breaking the view

of the hospital from the south through taller elements may be beneficial, but raised concerns that the impact on

the conservation area to the east would need to be equally considered.

2.3.12. As a result, the tallest tower was reduced in height by one storey in order to respond to the planners

concerns about height. The Council noted in their consultation reply in September 2014 that BDP were carrying

out a study of building heights in the Whitechapel area and agreed that this would help to inform the scale and

massing strategy for this scheme. The Council recognised the role that the scale and massing of this scheme

has to play in helping to mitigate the impact of the bulk and mass of hospital building in townscape views. They

considered that a variety of different building heights would help to achieve this. They also considered it

appropriate for any new towers in the area to be slender, however the Council expressed concern that the 28

storey tower is too broad and would appear unacceptably bulky. The Panel debated whether the design of this

building should be amended to achieve a more slender structure.

Figure 2 a-g: Design Development

3.1a

3.1b



1 | 15



October 2015

3.1c

3.1d

3.1e

3.1f

3.1g

2.3.13. In response to the Council’s further concerns about the height and massing of the tallest tower, this

was reduced, while the second tower was increased in height to compensate for the resulting reduction in

density.



1 | 16



October 2015

2.3.14. This offered the opportunity to consider the lower tower as a landmark for the Green Spine, this fitted

nicely with the historical narrative of the site, given that before WW2 a landmark building had occupied this part

of the site.

2.3.15. The towers were now much closer in scale, Block I was 27 stories, while Block E was 20 stories in

height, which created an uncomfortable competitive dynamic as they were previously conceived as having a

similar architectural language.

2.3.16. Following the changes to the heights of the two towers, the language of the lower tower was changed

to reflect the organic nature of the landscape proposed by Tom Stuart Smith. This differentiation in

architectural styles abated the issue of similar heights.

2.3.17. During a consultation with the Council and the GLA in October 2014; the overall height of the scheme

was discussed at length given surrounding conservation areas and listed buildings. It was agreed that the

tallest element of the scheme should be no taller than the adjacent hospital building, which has set a precedent

in the area. In general buildings should reduce in height away from the town centre and be subservient to

emerging buildings around the proposed Crossrail station. The GLA acknowledged that the current scheme is

close to achieving this, but felt that further fine-tuning of the height was required on the two taller elements

before application stage.

2.3.18. The height of the tallest tower was reduced to 24 stories in order to line up with the shoulder of the

hospital to demonstrate the development team’s willingness to respond to the Council’s suggestions.

2.3.19. This model also reflects the progress of the proposed architectural language of the lower rise proposed

buildings. The variation of the styles of the buildings was welcomed by the GLA as it avoids too much

homogeneity in the scheme.

2.3.20. The massing of blocks C and D were adjusted following daylight and a sunlight study. The adjustments

reduce the impact of these buildings on the existing residential buildings.

2.3.21. A row of town houses were introduced along Walden Street to complement the existing Georgian

terrace on the opposite side of the street in order to create a ‘Mews’ street.

2.3.22. The massing of the tower on the green spine has been adjusted to respond to the daylight analysis of

existing residential building on the opposite side of Varden Street. The podium has been repositioned to face

onto Varden Street, where it had previously faced onto the Green Spine, envisioned for Philpot Street. This

allowed the building to set back from Varden Street and improved the access to daylight for the adjacent

existing buildings.

2.4. Who has been consulted about the EIA?

2.4.1 Consultation has been undertaken with both statutory and non-statutory consultees and members of

the public as part of the EIA Scoping exercise and technical studies reported in the ES. This was to identify any

sensitivities or concerns which may have needed to be considered in the design process and assessed as part

of this ES. The Council provided their EIA Scoping Opinion and agreement on the approach to the ES

methodologies and surveys.

2.4.2 The following organisations were consulted during the preparation of this ES:

■ Various departments and officers at London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council;

■ Greater London Authority;

■ Natural England;



1 | 17



October 2015

■ The Environment Agency;

■ Thames Water;

■ Historic England (English Heritage);

■ Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS);

■ The City of London;

■ Historic Royal Palaces; and

■ London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority.

2.5. Have any alternative sites for the Proposed Development been considered?

2.5.1 No alternative sites have been considered by the Applicant as the Site is identified in the adopted

Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD as an area for mixed use and neighbourhood development. There are no

reasonable or feasible alternative sites to assess for the extent of works proposed, given the clear policy

context.

2.6. When will it be built?

2.6.1 Subject to the grant of Planning Permission and the discharge of relevant conditions, demolition and

construction works are assumed to commence in 2017 and overall completion towards the end of 2021. This is

however subject to existing leases on Site and vacant possession. The Design and Access Statement sets out

a proposed phasing strategy for the redevelopment of the site.



1 | 18



October 2015

3 Environmental Effects

3.1 Will the existing local community be disturbed as a result of the construction phase?

3.1.1 The development is anticipated to be built out over approximately a 5 year period during which time

there will be controls in place to mitigate any unavoidable negative effects on nearby existing residents that

may arise from the disturbance during the construction works. Such effects may include noise from construction

works, dust during certain activities and construction traffic. These effects have been assessed as part of the

EIA and reported in the ES. The effects will be of temporary duration.

3.1.2 As part of the Proposed Development, in order to mitigate the effects, it will be required that a

Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) is prepared and submitted to the Council for approval

before construction can start. The CEMP will be developed in accordance with all relevant legislation and

guidance, including the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes, and will include, but not

be limited to, measures for the effective management of surface water run-off and the appropriate storage of

construction materials and fuels. These measures will effectively mitigate any significant negative effects.

3.1.3 The contractor will be required to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme, which will set out

the management measures that the contractors will adopt and implement for construction to avoid and manage

any construction effects on the environment and the local community. There will also be regular liaison with the

local community throughout the construction period. Through the proposed mitigation measures to be secured,

it is not anticipated there will be significant long-term negative effects on the local community.

3.2 Will the new development benefit the local economy?

3.2.1 A review of the local baseline data found that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has an expanding

population, with large proportions of working age people in the community. London Borough of Tower Hamlets

is ranked within the 2% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA’s) in England. Based on data

provided by London Borough of Tower Hamlets there will be a shortage of primary school places from 2016/17

and secondary school places from 2019/20.

3.12.1 During construction works, it is anticipated that the Proposed Development will provide up to 211 Full

Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs Additional jobs are expected to be created through induced employment. Existing

employees will be relocated within the site during the demolition and construction phase to minimise effects.

3.12.2 The Proposed Development is likely to have a positive effect on the socio-economics of the area once

it is completed. Depending on the final mix of employment uses developed across the Site, the number of FTE

jobs created will be approximately 242 FTE jobs which will provide an additional 106 jobs over the 136

displaced as a result of the Proposed Development.

3.12.3 The Proposed Development will provide a range of housing (including approximately 27% affordable),

which will help to meet housing demands in London Borough of Tower Hamlets, with the potential to provide

additional affordable housing via an agreed review mechanism. In addition the new residents of the Proposed

Development will increase the spending in the local area, providing a positive economic uplift for London

Borough of Tower Hamlets.



1 | 19



October 2015

3.3 Will the existing community facilities be able to accommodate existing and new residents?

3.3.1 The increased demand placed by new residents of the scheme upon existing education, healthcare

and community facilities in the Borough is anticipated to have a minor negative effect, although there is scope

for financial contributions to be made by the developer. Following this mitigation measure, residual effects are

expected to be negligible.

3.3.2 The Proposed Development aligns well with a wide range of national, regional and local policy

objectives, in particular, increasing the supply of high quality, sustainable housing to meet projected increases

in population, enhanced economic prosperity through creating employment opportunities for local people and

providing suitable accommodation for business growth, and contributing towards a more attractive and

accessible public realm.

3.4 Will there be more traffic along the surrounding local road network?

3.4.1 The Site is bounded broadly by Ashfield Street to the north, Cavell Street to the east, Varden Street to

the south and Turner Street to the west. The PERS audit indicated that overall the pedestrian environment in

the area assessed is generally positive, adequately maintained infrastructure and of an appropriate quality.

The Site has good existing public transport links and is close to a range of local facilities, thereby reducing

reliance on private car use.

3.4.2 The closest bus stops to the Site are located on Whitechapel Road to the north, Cavell Street to the

east, New Road to the west and Commercial Road to the south and these stops are served by numerous bus

routes. The nearest LUL and Overground station is Whitechapel, which is located approximately 450m to the

north of the Site and the nearest DLR station is Shadwell station, which is located approximately 650m to the

south of the Site.

3.4.3 The likely significant effects associated with the Proposed Development in the construction phase will

be mitigated by a detailed Construction Logistics Plan will be submitted / agreed with the London Borough of

Tower Hamlets / TfL to minimise disruption in the local area.

3.4.4 The footways in the vicinity of the Site are to be resurfaced as part of the construction of the Site which

includes Ashfield Street, Cavell Street, Varden Street and Turner Street, improving the quality of the walking

environment in the area. Improvements to local pedestrian and cycling routes/facilities have been discussed

with London Borough of Tower Hamlets and TfL. The proposed central pedestrian spine is an integral part /

component of the Proposed Development and is one of the key initiatives (initiative 14). Highlighted in the

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Whitechapel Vision Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document which

will mitigate the Proposed Development’s impact.

3.4.5 To off-set any potential effects on bus services, it is proposed to provide a higher kerb stone at Bus

stop PT7 on Commercial Road as the PERS audit identified this as an improvement which would assist bus

boarding.

3.4.6 A total of 658 cycle parking spaces are proposed of which, 74 of the cycle parking spaces are

associated with visitors and Specialist Accommodation and 24 for the office space. This level of provision is in

excess of minimum standards set by London Borough of Tower Hamlets and TfL.



1 | 20



October 2015

3.4.7 The Proposed Development proposes 41 parking spaces within a basement car park for residents of

which 13 will be disabled spaces. The residential provision is below maximum standards set by local and

national policy and equates to a ratio of 0.087 spaces per unit. By providing a finite supply of car parking

spaces, residents will be encouraged to use alternative, more sustainable and active modes of travel such as

public transport, walking and cycling. The office and commercial units are intended to be car free. A Car park

Management Plan has been produced to manage the operation of the car park and minimise any potential

impacts.

3.4.8 In addition to the hard engineering measures, a Travel Plan will be maintained for the Site which will

support a number of soft measures designed to encourage active, sustainable travel. A Travel Plan Coordinator

will be appointed to maintain the Travel Plan and support sustainable travel at the Site.

3.4.9 The transport aspects of the Proposed Developments have been designed to limit parking availability

and to encourage sustainable modes of transport. Overall, the location and design of the Proposed

Developments will encourage the use of sustainable forms of transport and reduce the need to travel.

3.4.10 The Site’s location is deemed suitable for a mixed use development In terms of national, regional, and

local level planning policy guidance.

3.5 What will happen to the local air quality?

3.5.1 An assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential effect of the Proposed Development on

local air quality. The assessment has considered the existing air quality in the vicinity of the Site and the

potential air quality effects arising during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed

Development.

3.5.2 A qualitative assessment of the likely significant effects on local air quality from construction activities

for the Proposed Development has been undertaken, based on the IAQM construction assessment procedure.

This showed that during site activities releases of dust and PM10 are likely to occur.

3.5.3 This assessment identified that the proposals are considered to represent a high risk for demolition,

earthworks, construction activities and trackout. However, through good site practice, adherence to the CEMP

and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the effects of dust and PM10 releases will be reduced

and excessive releases prevented. The residual effect of the construction phase on air quality is therefore

considered to be of direct, temporary, medium term and of negligible significance.

3.5.4 Furthermore, a quantitative assessment of the impact of vehicle emissions associated with the

construction phase on local concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 was completed. This concluded that the

residual effect is considered to have a direct, temporary, medium term effect of minor negative significance.

3.5.5 A quantitative assessment was also completed of the likely significance effects arising from road traffic

generated by the Proposed Development during the operation phase in combination with emissions arising

from the proposed energy centre. Overall, the residual effect of the operation phase is considered to be direct,

permanent, long term and of negligible to minor negative significance in terms of annual mean NO2

concentrations and of negligible significance for all other pollutants and averaging periods.

3.5.6 Notwithstanding the above, the results of the assessment showed that in the opening year of the

Proposed Development, the predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations exceed the annual mean objective

across the Site. Using the London Council’s exposure criteria, 229 of the modelled future exposure receptors

fall under APEC Level B and C, indicating that mitigation (in the form of both mechanical ventilation and NOx

filtration) to reduce the level of exposure to below the AQS of 40μg/m3 should be implemented.

3.5.7 The results of the Air Quality Neutral Assessment show that the performance against the BEB for NOx

emissions was found to be compliant.



1 | 21



October 2015

3.5.8 Overall, with the recommended mitigation measure in place, the proposals would comply with

European and national air quality legislation, and national, regional and local planning policy.

3.6 Will the construction and operation cause a lot of noise?

3.6.1. An assessment has been undertaken to determine the likely significant noise and vibration effects

associated with the Proposed Development during the demolition and construction phases, and once the

development is operational.

3.6.2. To inform various elements of the assessment, a comprehensive baseline noise survey was

undertaken, using a combination of long term, continuous measurements at height, and short term, attended

measurements at ground floor levels, both on and off Site. It was observed that the noise environment around

the perimeter of the Site is dominated by road traffic noise. Within the Site, and thus away from sources of road

traffic noise, no one source is considered dominant, with contribution from road traffic, buildings services plant,

birds, the movement of leaves/trees, fixed-wing aircraft in the distance and the occasional helicopter

movements associated with Royal London Hospital helipad. The latter were not found to be significant at

ground level.

3.6.3. During the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the Proposed Development, it has

been found that some effects of major significance could occur at the nearest dwellings, Hospital buildings and

offices. However, such instances are likely to be limited to discrete activities and will be of limited duration. The

majority of the works would be undertaken away from sensitive receptors, as represented by the “average”

case noise levels, which indicate that effects are likely to be negligible for the majority of the time.

Notwithstanding this, the works would be undertaken adopting best practicable means and in accordance with

any controls subsequently agreed with the Council.

3.6.4. The assessment of the changes in road traffic noise levels as a result of the Proposed Development

has found that no changes are to be expected. This is due to the relatively small number of vehicle movements

associated with the Proposed Development. Increases of no more than 0.1 dB are predicted as a result of

factors other than the Proposed Development, but which would be considered to be negligible, and have no

effect on the assessment or Proposed Development, therefore It is not possible to determine the effect or

mitigation measures associated with any fixed plant that may be associated with the Proposed Development at

this stage. Instead, noise emission limits have been proposed based on the baseline noise data and the

Council’s requirement, which, when complied with, in conjunction with the CEMP, will ensure no significant

effects occur. These limits can be used during the selection and design process associated with the fixed plant

and its installation, to ensure that noise levels are adequately controlled.

3.6.5. The suitability of the Site for the proposed residential use has been considered based on a combination

of the results of the baseline noise survey and predictions of the existing and future helicopter noise levels at

the upper floors of the prosed tower. In terms of the (internal) habitable rooms, it has been determined that

windows would need to remain closed in order to meet the adopted noise targets, but with standard thermal

double-glazed units being sufficient. As a guide, glazing comprising 6mm glass, 12mm air gap and 4mm glass

has been found to meet the highest required sound insulation performance.

3.6.6. When the windows are closed, ventilation would be provided by MVHR units within each property,

which will have boost and purge facilities. Measures will also be in place to minimise solar gain, whereby it is

assumed sufficient ventilation and cooling can be achieved for the majority of the time with windows closed.

3.6.7. In terms of the external amenity areas, it has been found that the adopted noise target may be

exceeded in some instances. However, it is recognised in the relevant British Standard that, “In higher noise

areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between

elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient

use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted.”



1 | 22



October 2015

3.6.8. In terms of the balconies, it has been suggested that these could be turned into additional winter

gardens, whereby the noise target would be met assuming partially open windows. However, the development

will provide a number of other indoor amenity areas, which will be adequately protected from external sources

of noise. It is, therefore, considered, that the future occupants would have sufficient choice depending on their

requirements.

3.6.9. Accordingly, with the required glazing and ventilation in place, it is considered that suitable noise levels

would be achieved within the development; and since the occupants will have a choice between a range of

external and internal amenity space, it is considered that the Site is suitable for the proposed residential

elements of the development.

3.6.10. The baseline vibration data have been compared to the thresholds of perception presented in the

relevant guidance documents, and it has been determined that perceptible vibration within the Proposed

Development is highly unlikely.

3.7 Will I be able to see the new development?

3.7.1. The layout of the Proposed Development is arranged in 12 Blocks (A, B1 & B2, C, D1 & D2, E, F, G,

Ha & Hb and I) ranging in height from 2 to 23 Storeys (Block I). By creating a hierarchy of heights the street

conditions are improved by keeping most of the street edges low while concentrating the density in specific

locations. The maximum height for the Proposed Development was determined by the height of the Royal

London Hospital and the surrounding residential buildings as well as an extensive consultation process with

London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

3.7.2. From an architectural perspective the eastern and western portion of the Site has been treated

differently. The main bulk of the Proposed Development is located near to the London Royal Hospital to the

east – the proposed tall buildings (Blocks E and I) will mediate between the hospital and the existing residential

buildings to the south of the Site. This allows the density to be focused away from the more sensitive historical

context to the west.

3.7.3. The proposed buildings to the west of the Site range in height (between 4 and 8 storeys) relates to the

height of the surrounding existing buildings.

3.7.4. The primary land use for the Proposed Development is residential, there is to be a mix of private,

affordable and specialist housing. Block Hb is designated as commercial office use (Use Class B1) – it is

anticipated that this office space will be used by small enterprise business. The ground floors of Blocks B1, D

and E are to be retail units to serve as cafes or restaurants (Use Class A1 – A3). These cafes and restaurants

will help create active street frontages in order to animate the public space.

3.7.5. In order to improve the public realm a sequence of high quality public and private open spaces will be

created. The existing ‘Green Spine’ is to be reinforced and is to remain the focus of the scheme and will act as

an important element used to reconnect the Proposed Development to the city. The west garden will be semi-

private and will enhance the public realm as the western garden will be open to the public during the day and

secured at night. The east garden will be private and for the enjoyment of the residents.

3.7.6. Further details on heights and massing can be found in the Whitechapel Estate Design and Access

Statement prepared by PLP and Adjaye Associates. Further details on public and private open space and the

proposed plant combinations can be found in the paragraph 3.4.7 and the public realm proposals contained

within the Design and Access Statement.

3.7.7. The development takes the opportunity to optimise the use of the site, with a mix of uses, a public

spaces, links through and high quality landscaping. Continuous assessment has occurred throughout the

design development process to ensure that all significant effects are reasonable and to avoid infringement of,

or damage to views and settings of heritage assets.



1 | 23



October 2015

3.7.8. The Townscape and Heritage Visual Impact Assessment (THVIA) (Volume 2 of the Environmental

Statement) records assessments for different townscape receptors, including the Maritime Greenwich

and Tower of London World Heritage Sites, conservation areas, listed buildings, non-designated heritage

assets, character areas and the general townscape. The likely effects of the development are best

illustrated in the Accurate Visual Representations from 38 distinct viewpoints (Volume 2 of the

Environmental Statement). The assessments give rise to the conclusion that the development is of a high

quality, includes appropriate mitigation/enhancement through design, is appropriate for the site and that

its townscape and visual effects are generally beneficial as a result.

3.7.9. While it is accepted that the development would achieve high densities and heights, than was originally

anticipated by the local authority, it has been assessed to be a proposal that would give rise to no significant

adverse townscape, heritage or visual effects.

3.7.10. This development represents a rare occasion when a particular site configuration, and two good

architectural practices have come together to propose a development of significant benefit to the area. In

townscape, visual and heritage terms, the effects are shown to be beneficial.

3.8 Are there any concerns relating to contaminated land or ground conditions within the Sites?

3.8.1 The underlying ground conditions beneath the Site have been identified as Made Ground overlying

Taplow Gravel (Secondary (A) aquifer), with Langley Silt present in the south west of the Site. Bedrock

comprises the London Clay Formation (Unproductive aquifer), which is underlain by the Lambeth Group

Formation (Secondary (A) aquifer), Thanet Sand Formation (Secondary (A) aquifer) and Lewes Nodular Chalk

Formation (Principal aquifer). No surface water receptors have been identified within 500m of the Site.

3.8.2 Historical records indicate that the Site has had mixed commercial and residential uses, which have

included a graveyard, research laboratory, hospital buildings and a garage. The surrounding area is a mixture

of residential and commercial uses. Various hospital buildings are present immediately to the north of the Site.

3.8.3 Likely significant sources identified include:

■ The graveyard has the potential to contain contaminants including metals, phenols, embalming fluids

(including formaldehyde). There is the potential for leaching of contaminants to groundwater;

■ An on-site ‘Works’ and garage has been identified in the east part of the Site. Potential contaminants

include hydrocarbons, metals, solvents and asbestos;

■ Hospital buildings and research laboratory has been identified as a potential source due the presence of

backup generators and a wide range of chemicals stored at the Site;

■ A substation is present on-site;

■ Off-site potential contaminant sources in the include petrol filling stations and the Royal London Hospital;

■ Given the nature of the geology in the vicinity of the Site, there is considered to be potential for migration

of contaminants onto the Site from offsite sources; and

■ Construction plant or future vehicle use on-site may contaminate soils or groundwater.

3.8.4 Likely significant pathways identified include:

■ Contaminants potentially present in the unsaturated zone migrating vertically downwards into the

saturated zone (in particular the Secondary (A) aquifer of the Taplow Gravel)beneath the Site;

■ Dermal contact, ingestion and / or inhalation of contaminated dust, soils or vapours creating direct

exposure to potential contamination present within the unsaturated zone; and



1 | 24



October 2015

■ The uptake of contaminants by plants, which may be ingested or inhibit plant growth.

3.8.5 Likely significant receptors identified include:

■ Construction workers, maintenance workers as well as current and future Site users who may be exposed

to on-site contamination;

■ Offsite receptors; and.

■ Potable water.

3.8.6 Proposed mitigation measures include:

■ Appropriate use of PPE during demolition, construction and maintenance;

■ Dust suppression during the demolition and construction phase;

■ Use of appropriate PPE and hygiene regime by demolition and construction workers during the demolition

and construction phases;

■ Appropriate fuel storage and good practice during fuelling of Site vehicles during demolition and

construction;

■ Appropriate Site drainage including use of interceptor systems in areas where motor vehicles are used;

■ Undertaking a pilling risk assessment. Selection of appropriate piling technique will be important to limit

vertical migration of contaminants;

■ A ground investigation will be carried out to identify potential contaminant linkages. If the ground

investigation identifies contaminant linkages a Remediation Strategy will be produced for the Site to

specify protective measures for the construction phase of the development.

■ If potential contaminant linkages are identified following the ground investigation a remediation strategy

will be produced in agreement with the Regulators and National House Building Council on that strategy

and subsequent verification report requirements (In accordance with CLR 11);

■ Selection of appropriate water supply pipework and the provision of clean cover in service corridors; and

■ Planting of amenity species in clean topsoil and subsoil.

3.8.7 The majority of residual effects during operation have all been assessed as negligible significance,

based upon the above mitigation measures being implemented appropriately. A minor positive significance

residual effect has been identified relating to the removal of a potential soil source for long term leaching of

contaminants into groundwater.

3.9 Will the new development have microclimatic effects?

Environmental Wind

3.9.1. Wind tunnel testing for the Proposed Development at the Site was conducted with the existing site

conditions tested as the baseline. Sensitive receptors were identified to be Thoroughfare locations, Entrance

locations, Balcony locations, and Terrace Location.



1 | 25



October 2015

3.9.2. Receptors with significant effect due to the development were identified to be balconies and terrace

locations on high rise Blocks (Block E and Block I) with significance mostly classified as minor negative, except

for corner balconies on Block I, which were classified as moderate negative. All other areas within and around

the Site were found to have wind conditions that were suitable for (or calmer than required for) their intended

use. Mitigation was proposed for windier receptors in the form of balustrades and planting. 1.2 metre high solid

balustrades together with planting (to a total height of at least 1.5m) are recommended for windy balconies, and

1.2 metres balustrades with planting throughout the space are recommended for terraces. Such measures are

expected to be sufficient to reduce the windy conditions in these locations.

3.9.3. No significant changes to wind conditions were observed with other committed development in situ.

With the proposed mitigation measures in place, the development is expected to be acceptable for its intended

uses.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

3.9.4. The assessment undertaken shows that there is 94% compliance with Average Daylight Factor (ADF)

results to neighbouring properties, when very small kitchens are omitted from the analysis. It also shows that

the remaining rooms that do not meet the ADF standard are those that have their sky visibility limited by

overhanging balconies and that when these windows are tested without the balconies in place, the ADF

standards are shown to be adequate. Therefore, these particular rooms have the additional immunity of the

balconies to compensate for the lower levels of ADF.

3.9.5. The overshadowing assessment concluded that overall, the Development would have a negligible

effect, on neighbouring amenity with only a very highly local, permanent minor effect to amenity areas created

within the red line boundary of the Site.

3.9.6. The internal daylight analysis shows that all but a total of eighteen habitable rooms within the Site

would satisfy the BRE target values for quality and quantity of light received. As such, the likely residual effect

on the new residential accommodation within the Development would be negligible, aside for these isolated

infringements which would likely be subject to a highly local, permanent, minor to moderate adverse residual

effect.

3.9.7. The results therefore show that the scale and massing of this scheme proposal is an

appropriate one for the regeneration of this area and that the design has been carefully considered to ensure

that neighbouring residential properties are left with adequate levels of daylight for their purpose, to the same

standards as will be provided within the new development itself.

The Whitechapel Estate Environmental Statement - Non-Technical Summary

1 | 26


Cross Property Investment West SARL October 2015

3.10 Will the new development affect any on-site ecology?

3.10.1. The Site contains habitat that is suitable for common or notable breeding and foraging birds in the trees

and buildings. The potential significant effects are therefore harm and disturbance to protected species during

the construction period and the reduction of habitats on the Site once the Proposed Development is

operational. Mitigation measures include removing buildings and trees outside of the breeding bird season

(which is March - August inclusive), creating buffer zones around nests from noise, dust and lighting

disturbance effects and the replacement of lost habitats in the landscaping proposals.

3.10.2. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures it is considered that the effects of the

Proposed Development are predominantly negligible, with minor positive effects in relation to the tree planting,

native species planting, provision of bird boxes and green / brown roofs proposed for foraging bird species.

Overall, there is a net gain in habitats for wildlife.

3.10.3. It is considered that, provided the appropriate ecological mitigation and enhancement measures, such

as the bio-diverse green roofs and new landscaping, are incorporated within the Proposed Development where

required, there is no reason why the Site cannot be developed in accordance with the relevant planning policy

and legislation.

3.11 Will the development increase the risk of flooding?

3.11.1. A desk study was undertaken to determine the water resources, water quality, flood risk and drainage

conditions within and around the Site. A review of Chapter 14 ‘Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and

Contamination’ and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and drainage strategy was also undertaken. An

assessment was then made of the effect of the Proposed Development on water resources and the likely effect

on flood risk and measures to prevent or minimise any negative effects have been identified. The residual

effects after these measures were implemented were subsequently assessed.

3.11.2. There are no surface water features on Site. The nearest features are Shadwell Basin, which is

located approximately 800m south of the Site and the Ornamental Canal which is located approximately 930m

south of the Site. The River Thames is located approximately 1.1km to the south of the Site.

3.11.3. A pre-development application has been lodged with Thames Water who has confirmed that the

existing public sewers should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional foul water flows anticipate

for the new development.

3.11.4. Environment Agency mapping obtained as part of the FRA indicates that the Site lies within Flood Zone

1, where the probability of flooding is 1 in 1000 years or greater (0.1% or less chance of flooding in any given

year. To mitigate the risk of contamination of surface water and effects on the drainage regime a Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed, in consultation with London Borough of Tower

Hamlets, to manage and control all the construction activities on the Site. The CEMP will be developed in

accordance with all relevant legislation and guidance, including the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention

Guidance Notes, and will include, but not be limited to, measures for the effective management of surface

water run-off and the appropriate storage of construction materials and fuels. These measures will effectively

mitigate potentially significant negative effects.

3.11.5. The use of SuDS including green / brown roofs, rainwater harvesting and provision of appropriate

below ground water storage will be provided on Site to achieve at least 50% reduction in the peak water

discharge rate. As such the proposed surface water drainage strategy will seek to improve the Site’s existing

hydrology in terms of reducing the volume of surface water run-off in order to reduce the risk of on-site and

downstream flooding.


1 | 27



3.11.6. Measures to promote the re-use and/ or recycling of water to reduce overall water demand will be

considered for integration into the scheme. Residential dwellings within the Proposed Development will meet

Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and non-residential elements will meet BREEAM ‘Excellent’. Water

efficiency measures will be consistent with best practice and could include measures such as water efficient

sanitary fixings and appliances and grey water recycling systems.

3.11.7. Following the implementation of the above mitigation measures and with an appropriate drainage

strategy in place within the Proposed Development, an overall permanent, direct, long-term residual effect of

negligible to minor negative significance is anticipated during operation of the Proposed Development.

3.12 Does the Site have archaeological potential?

3.12.1 A comprehensive desk-based review of existing information was undertaken, including a review of

planning policy and guidance, GLHER and NMR data and historic ordnance survey maps. This assessment is

supported by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (ADBA) completed by CgMs in 2012 (Appendix 15.1

of Chapter 15 of the Whitechapel Estate Environmental Statement).

3.12.2 In terms of archaeological baseline, there is evidence of archaeological activity within the Site and

evidence in the vicinity is limited. The ADBA, Ground Penetrating Radar survey and Trial Trench

Archaeological Evaluation has revealed evidence for substantial remains (human burials) pertaining to a former

cemetery for Wycliffe Chapel that once fronted onto Philpot Street (Appendices 15.1 – 15.5 of Chapter 15 of

the Whitechapel Estate Environmental Statement). The baseline study has also revealed evidence for potential

further Post Medieval features elsewhere on the Site, mainly to the south west and south east, pertaining to

garden plots. As a result extensive consultation has continued with LBTH and the GLA Archaeological Advisory

Service throughout the pre-application statge and design development.

3.12.3 There are no World Heritage Sites or Registered Battlefields or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens

within the Site. The Site is not within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by the London Borough of

Tower Hamlets.

3.12.4 During the construction phase, the assessment considered that the residual effects on any potential

buried / surface archaeological deposits are likely to be of minor negative significance for the Post Medieval

and Modern periods and of negligible negative significance for all other periods following the implementation of

mitigation measures. Such mitigation measures are to be conditioned and are likely to consist of further

archaeological evaluation followed by full excavation of the former cemetery and associated features to be

agreed with GLAAS through a WSI.

3.13 What are the likely effects of the Proposed Development, together with other committed developments in the area?

3.13.1. The likely effects of the Proposed Development, together with the committed developments, have been

assessed. The construction works may result in negative effects should the committed developments be

constructed at the same time as the Proposed Development, resulting in an increase in disturbance from

construction activities, an increase in noise and dust as a result of construction activities and a change in

townscape character.

3.13.2. During site preparation and construction of the Proposed Development, the majority of likely effect

interactions relate to nearby residents where temporary effects are expected in terms of noise and vibration,

dust generation, townscape views and character of the Site.


1 | 28



3.13.3. It is important to note that these effects will be temporary and intermittent during the construction

works. The CEMP for the Proposed Development will reduce and control any negative effects on the existing

environment, including effects on existing residential properties near the Site.

3.13.4. Once the Proposed Development is complete, long-term positive in-combination effects on existing and

future residents (within the Site) are expected to arise from changes in road traffic, changes in views, an

increase in housing numbers and local facilities.

3.14 What measures will be used to avoid and reduce the environmental effects of the Proposed Development?

3.14.1. A summary of the proposed measures which will be secured and implemented to avoid and reduce any

negative environmental effects and enhance environmental benefits associated with the Proposed

Development are confirmed in the table below.

Topic area Measures to avoid or offset potential negative environmental effects / Enhancement measures

Construction Phase Completed Development

Socio-Economics ■ No mitigation required ■ Financial and non-financial obligations if required, to mitigate the effects, subject to viability.

Environmental Wind ■ No mitigation required. ■ Light planting throughout the terrace.

■ 1.2 metres Balustrades

Noise and Vibration ■ Liaise with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Environmental Health Department and prepare and implement a CEMP

■ Erect a solid hoarding around the Site

■ Adopt the best practice measures and Best Practicable Means at all times

■ Substitute vibration generating plant with alternatives that generate less vibration. Plant generating significant levels of vibration should not be started or stopped within 30 metres of an occupied building.

■ Monitor works closely

■ Careful selection, installation and noise attenuation of all plant items to ensure that the proposed plant noise emission criteria are achieved

■ Relevant measures that could be secured by condition and might include the appropriate design of building elements and adoption of management controls

■ Provision of appropriate glazing and ventilation to ensure relevant internal daytime and night-time noise criteria are achieved

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing

■ No mitigation required. ■ Delva Patman Redler have worked with the architects on the siting, orientation and massing on the plots to minimise effects on neighbouring amenity where practicably possible whilst working within the constraints of this dense urban centre.

Telecommunications ■ None Required ■ Realigning end-user reception aerials in to an alternative transmitter

■ Realigning end-user aerials to ensure maximum reception strength;

■ Relocating end-user aerials or satellite dishes on building façades or rooftops to maintain a direct line of sight;

■ Switching to digital television transmissions (i.e. Freeview); and/or

■ Switching end users’ systems to satellite, subscription cable or ADSL services.

Transport & Access ■ Construction Logistics Plan.

■ Footpath closures / diversions to be agreed with London Borough of Tower Hamlets and TfL; and

■ Diversions will be provided to allow continuation of pedestrian accessibility to the

■ Enhancement measures will result in improved lighting, enhanced street layout, public realm, and connectivity

■ Off-site works propose improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development.


1 | 29





surrounding area. ■ Enhancement measures will result in improved lighting, enhanced street layout, public realm and connectivity - no further mitigation required.

■ No mitigation required.

■ No mitigation required however it should be noted that Crossrail improvements to Whitechapel Station will be completed in 2018.

■ Restricted Car Parking; and

■ Introduction of Car Park Management Plan and Travel Plan

Noise & Vibration ■ Selection of least vibration inducing plant and techniques;

■ Implementation of BPM; and

■ Adoption of a CEMP and / or Section 61 Application

■ Adoption of noise emission limits presented in Table 10.36 of Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration – mitigation requirements to be determined on this basis.

■ Installation of suitable glazing and Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) units.

■ Use of winter gardens on upper floors of Blocks E & I (instead of balconies) – optional measure; and

■ Provision of a range of outdoor and indoor amenity space.

Local Air Quality ■ Implementation of a CEMP;

■ Implementing good site practice, including dampening of exposed road surfaces and stock piles of materials. All vehicles carrying loose aggregates should be sheeted;

■ Ensure all motorised equipment on-site is kept in good working order;

■ Restrict on-site vehicle movements where possible; and

■ Use of best practice in materials storage and transportations, plant maintenance and site management.

■ Ensure all on-road vehicles comply with the requirements of the London Low Emission Zone and the London NRMM standards, where applicable;

■ Ensure all vehicles switch off engines when stationary - no idling vehicles;

■ Produce a Construction Logistics Plan to manage the sustainable delivery of goods and materials; and

■ Implement a Travel Plan that supports and encourages sustainable travel (public transport, cycling, walking, and car-sharing).

■ Implementation of a travel plan.

■ Monitoring strategy to inform the nitrogen dioxide concentrations with height as identified within the assessment and the extent of the mitigation (ventilation) that may be required

Ecology ■ Removal of vegetation outside of the breeding bird season (which is March – August inclusive) or if this is not possible, under ecological supervision.

■ Buffer zones around nesting birds where buildings and trees are removed during the breeding bird season (March – August inclusive) as highlighted during a breeding bird check; and

■ Retained trees to be protected by Root Protection Areas, which provide a buffer of ’no disturbance’ for these urban bird species.

■ Provision of bird boxes on the Site on new buildings and trees.

■ Provision of native planting to provide enhanced food sources in Site-wide landscaping compared to the current Site conditions.

Water Resources, ■ Implementation of CEMP and BPM (including ■ Provision and maintenance of oil interceptors


1 | 30





Water Quality, Flood Risk & Drainage

the Environment Agency’s PPGs).

■ Early implementation of the surface water drainage strategy

in parking areas where required.

■ Detailed design water strategy (post-planning), will incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that water demand and capacity issues are minimised.

Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and Contamination

■ Dust suppression measures / UXO magnetometer surveying / use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment and hygiene measures

■ damping down stockpiles and wheel washing;

■ Presence of hardstanding across the majority of the Site;

■ Construction of basements will remove potentially contaminated soil; and

■ Remediation of identified areas of contamination.

■ Remediation of soils or provision of cover systems and verification report; and

■ Provision of vapour/ gas protection membranes

■ Specification of clean cover for service corridors.

■ Implementation of Piling Risk Assessment and selection of appropriate piling technique;

■ Remediation of identified areas of contamination; and

■ Removal of large areas of potentially contaminated soil as part of the construction of proposed basements.

Archaeology ■ Further post determination Trial Trenching followed by excavation of the Post Medieval Burial Ground.

■ Archaeological Watching Brief throughout the south west of the site.

■ No mitigation required.

Townscape, Built Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment

■ Temporary screening to the sensitive visual receptors through the implementation of solid construction hoardings;

■ restricting construction site lighting outside normal working hours as far as practicable to the minimum required for safety and security;

■ Use of attractive hoardings to screen low-level ‘clutter’;

■ Appropriate location, organisation and phasing of construction activities;

■ Directional lighting to be used to limit unwanted light spill, which will be positioned and angled away from any sensitive visual receptors;

■ Tidy Site management to reduce the visual clutter associated with building works; and

■ Large plant will be located away from the most sensitive receptors, where there are viable alternative locations.

■ None required


1 | 31



3.15 Conclusion

3.15.1. The Proposed Development will deliver a new mixed-use development compromising 470 residential units, retail and commercial floorspace and public and private open space and landscaping.

3.15.2. The Proposed Development is considered to be appropriate in terms of location and viability, including links to the existing public transport and highways network, and it will deliver a variety of dwelling types, as well as commercial, retail and public open space that will benefit future residents and the wider community, accompanied by improved pedestrian and cycle provision around the Proposed Development.

3.15.3. The overall design of the Proposed Development and commitments that have been made upon agreement with London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council to the proposed management practices during construction and operation will incorporate a range of enhancement and mitigation measures. These measures will minimise any significant environmental effects and ensure that the sustainability and environmental performance of the development is optimised.

3.15.4. Planning conditions, obligations, or other means may be used to secure the delivery of the agreed mitigation and enhancement measures set out in this ES and other documents submitted in support of the Planning Application.

3.16 What happens next?

3.16.1. The Environmental Statement has been submitted together with other planning application reports and

plans to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council for the Officers to consider in consultation with various

stakeholders in the context of planning policy before making a recommendation to the Planning Committee on

the planning application.

3.16.2. During the period of determination, the Council will contact government bodies and agencies and other

consultees regarding the Proposed Development. Members of the general public are also invited by the Council

to comment on the planning application. The Council will take account of the consultation in reaching their

decision on the planning application.

3.17 Who can I contact if I want some more information?

3.17.1. Further information, including a copy of the planning application documents, the Environmental

Statement and this Non-Technical Summary, is available at the following website:

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/environment_and_planning/planning.aspx

Any comments can be sent to:

Planning Department

Tower Hamlets Council

Town Hall

Mulberry Place

5 Clove Crescent

E14 2BG

3.18 Can I have a copy of the Environmental Statement or this Non-Technical Summary?

3.18.1 The Environmental Statement and the Non-Technical Summary will be available to view online on

London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ planning website. Paper copies of the ES documents can be provided at a

cost, via WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/environment_and_planning/planning.aspx

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

WSP House

Chancery Lane

London

WC2 1AF

UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7406 50000

Fax: +44 (0)20 7314 5111

www.wspgroup.co.uk

Quality Management - IEMA Whitechapel... · 1.3.2. To the north is the greater part of the London...

Documents

Transcript of Quality Management - IEMA Whitechapel... · 1.3.2. To the north is the greater part of the London...