Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a 6-storey (plus basement) building accommodating 1,307sqm (NIA) office floorspace at basement and first to fifth floors, and a 243sqm (NIA) retail (A1 use) unit at ground level, together with associated cycle parking and refuse and recycling storage.

(Planning application number: P2016/3353/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         In response to concerns with the results of the Average Daylight Factor (ADF), the Planning Officer advised that little weight could be attached to the applicant’s ADF tests results as it relied on a range of inputs including assumptions regarding internal reflectivity and assumptions made regarding room sizes at some of the properties. Additionally, ADF is not one of the two primary tests to be used to assess impacts on adjoining daylight receipt, the primary tests are Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and Daylight Distribution(DD).

·         With regards to concerns raised by the London Fire and Emergency Planning, the Legal adviser informed Members that although issues of fire safety were building control matters, the potential impacts on a scheme to accommodate such building regulations solutions provided by the applicants could have material impacts on the scheme –for consideration by Planning Committee.  

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that the applicants daylight and sunlight consultants had not visited any of the neighbouring properties and acknowledged that the results from the measurements he had undertaken when he visited the neighbouring flats were different from those provided by the applicant’s daylight consultants. He acknowledged that he did share the information with the applicant.

·         Members were concerned that considering the scale of the scheme and sensitive location that the scheme had not been presented to the Islington Design Review Panel (DRP) for their comments.  It was determined that there were concerns over the appropriateness of the response to the character of the immediate vicinity and that therefore it must be presented to the DRP.

·         Objections raised by neighbouring residents included the size and scale of the building; impact on neighbouring amenity; loss of privacy and the inaccurate information provided by the applicant’s daylight and sunlight consultants etc.

·         The Applicant’s agent highlighted the benefits of the scheme and addressed concerns raised by the objectors. He indicated that following consultation with neighbouring occupants the scheme was amended to address the issue of massing; the deletion of terraces from along boundary with 13-14 Great Sutton street and the provision of privacy screens to the front and rear terraces at fifth floor level.

·         The agent acknowledged that the methodology employed for measuring the sunlight and daylight loss included a number of assumptions, however he indicated that considering the location of the site, any loss was within a tolerable level.

Councillor Khan proposed a motion to defer consideration on three grounds:

a)    Advice from the Design Review Panel would be welcomed by the Committee given the mixed views on the quality of the design.

b)    More detailed information regarding the sunlight and daylight loss measurements to be provided especially as results from the applicants consultant is contrary to those obtained after visits by Planning Officers to neighbouring properties.

c)    A written response from the London Fire and Emergency Planning in light of their fire safety concerns.

This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.