DD2534 Former Westferry Printworks planning appeal – Public Inquiry

1.1 The London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) formally consulted the Mayor on the Westferry Printworks appeal application (the ‘Application’) on 12 September 2018 and the Mayor considered a Stage 1 report on 17 December 2018. The Westferry Printworks appeal application relates to the “Comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment comprising 1,524 residential units (Class C3), shops, offices, flexible workspaces, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafés, drinking establishments (Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4), community uses (Class D1) car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and all other necessary enabling works”.

1.2 The Mayor’s Stage 1 response advised that, whilst the principle of development was supported in strategic planning terms, it did not yet comply with the London Plan and required LBTH to refer the application back to the Mayor once it resolved to determine it. The Stage 1 report raised a number of issues with the primary concerns as follows:

• the inclusion of Tower T5 and its impact on the provision of open space;

• the height of the proposed buildings and their impact on the setting of Tower of London; and

• the failure of the appellant to demonstrate that they are providing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

1.3 An appeal was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 26 March 2019 against LBTH non-determination of the application and on 10 April 2019 PINS advised that the Secretary of State shall determine the appeal instead of an Inspector. As the Mayor raised significant concerns within his Stage 1 response, the GLA requested ‘Rule 6’ status from PINS. ‘Rule 6’ status means that the GLA is considered to be a main party for the purposes of the Inquiry. The Council (local planning authority) and appellant are normally the main parties at Inquiries. On 11 June 2019 PINS confirmed, by letter, that the GLA would have ‘Rule 6 status’ and take a full part in the PI.

1.4 The public inquiry was held by Inspector David Prentis BA BPI MRTPI between 7 August 2019 and 22 August 2019 and for a further day on 9 September 2019. The GLA’s case focused primarily on heritage impacts, open space with reference to the Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) and affordable housing/financial viability. On 20 November 2019 the Inspector issued his report to the SoS recommending to the SoS that the appeal be dismissed. The Inspector agreed with the GLA’s case that the proposal would result in harm to the significance of Tower Bridge and that the affordable housing offer would not represent the maximum reasonable amount.

1.5 On 14 January 2020, against the Inspector’s recommendation, the SoS decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission. The GLA and LBTH made applications to challenge the SoS’s Decision and the SoS consented to judgment accepting that his decision was unlawful by reason of apparent bias. On 21 May 2020 the High Court quashed the SoS’s Decision. On 21 December 2020, the SoS confirmed that the would be reopened and, since that date, discussions have been ongoing to agree the matters to be considered at the reopened PI.

1.6 A date for the PI has not yet been confirmed but it is likely to be held late Spring/ Early Summer 2021. The duration of the Public Inquiry is not yet known and will largely depend on the identity of the Inspector. Inquiry time will be minimised if the previous Inspector is appointed. The reopened PI will primarily focus on the planning balance and the conflicts with the Development Plan identified in relation to heritage impacts and affordable housing. The SoS has also identified the following matters to be considered:

a) the implications of the adoption of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031;

b) the impact of the adoption by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets of a CIL Charging Schedule which took effect on 17 January 2020;

c) the implications of progress on the London Plan;

d) the implications for the proposal of these changes and any other changes of circumstances on the viability of the proposal; and

e) any material change in circumstances, fact or policy, that may have arisen since his decision of 14 January 2020 was issued and which the parties consider to be material to the Secretary of State’s further consideration of this appeal.

1.7 Legal representation by Leading Counsel will be required at the public inquiry. Melissa Murphy represented the Mayor in relation to the first public inquiry and has been retained for the forthcoming inquiry. Legal fees to be incurred are likely to be up to £100,000. Counsel has been instructed by TfL legal. Professional specialist consultant services may also be required with fees up to £30,000 consisting of £20,000 for heritage consultancy services and £10,000 for viability cost / residential value consultancy services. Should specialist consultants be required we would seek single source supplier procurement as we would want the same consultants who represented the GLA at the first PI.

1.8 These fees are based on initial fee quotes from the barrister chambers and our experience of likely costs of obtaining professional consultancy services. We have sought to minimise the overall expenditure through the use of the same Counsel and consultants who supported the GLA at the previous PI.. It should also be noted that the overall expenditure is likely to reduce significantly if the previous Inspector is appointed to redetermine the appeal. All of the main parties, including the GLA, have requested the reappointment of the previous Inspector

1.9 It is therefore requested that the Executive Director approves expenditure up to £130,000 from the Planning Smoothing Reserve.

2.1 To enable the preparation for, and presentation of a robust Mayoral case at, the reopened Public Inquiry due to take place late Spring / Early Summer 2021.

3.1 Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, in making these decisions “due regard” must be had to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation as well as to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not. Protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation (and marriage or civil partnership status for the purpose of the duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination only).

3.2 This duty was taken into account during the Mayors stage 1 decision and in presenting evidence at the previous Public Inquiry, but no additional equality impact assessments are required beyond those considered in the relevant planning documentation for the Mayor to make these decisions. The Mayor, in making his decisions, had regard to planning policies which are subject to Equality Impact Assessments and he also considered the full range of social impacts arising from the scheme including affordable housing. The procurement process will comply with the Equality Act and set out the relevant requirements to any successful consultant/legal representation.

4.1 If the Mayor’s case is not robustly presented there is a very real risk that the London Plan and Publication London Plan would be undermined and London’s strategic planning interests would not be properly taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering the planning appeal, thereby impacting the Mayor’s ability to carry out his statutory duties. This case is relevant to several of the Mayoral strategies and priorities but the Mayors London Housing and Cultural Strategies are of particular relevance.

4.2 There are no conflicts of interests by anyone involved in the drafting or clearance of this form requesting approval of expenditure for the reopened Westferry Printworks PI.

5.1 Approval is sought for expenditure of up to £130,000 on legal and professional representation to support the GLA and officers in presenting the Mayor’s planning case at the public inquiry.

5.2 The costs of up to £130,000 will be incurred in the 2021-22 financial-year and will be funded from the GLA’s Planning Smoothing Reserve that is to be topped up as part of the Authority’s 2021-22 Budget setting process.

6.1 Sections 1 to 5 of this report indicate that:

I. the decisions requested of the Director (in accordance with the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code) concern the exercise of the GLA’s general powers, falling within the GLA’s statutory powers to do such things considered to further or which are facilitative of, conducive or incidental to the promotion of economic development and wealth creation, social development or the promotion of the improvement of the environment in Greater London and;

II. In formulating the proposals in respect of which a decision is sought, officers confirm that they have complied with GLA’s related statutory duties to:

• pay due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people

• consider how the proposals will promote the improvement of health of persons, health inequalities between persons and to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom; and

• consider consulting with appropriate bodies.

6.2 In taking the decisions requested, the Director must have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty; namely the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010 and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic (race, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment) and persons who do not share it (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010). To this end, the Director should have particular regard to section 3 (above) of this report.

6.3 Section 34 of the GLA Act, which allows the Mayor to do anything which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the exercise of any of his functions, and the Mayor’s powers under section 38 of the GLA Act to delegate to any member of staff functions of the GLA that are exercisable by him, and the foregoing sections of this form indicate that the decision requested falls within the above statutory powers of the GLA exercisable by the Executive Director – Good Growth.

6.4 Officers confirm that any consultancy services required will be procured in accordance with the GLA’s Contracts and Funding Code and that the legal support has been appointed by TfL Legal.