Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site at Regent's Wharf including the refurbishment and extension of 10-12 Regent's Wharf (including part one/part two storey roof extension) to provide additional Class B1 business floorspace with ancillary flexible Class A1/A3 (retail/restaurant) and flexible Class A1/B1/D1 (retail/business/non-residential institutions) floorspace at ground floor level; demolition of 14, 16 and 18 Regent's Wharf and erection of a part 5 and part 6 storey building with rooftop plant enclosure providing Class B1(a) office floorspace and flexible Class A1/A3/B1/D1/D2 (retail/restaurant & café/business/non-residential institutions/assembly & leisure) floorspace at ground floor; and associated hard and soft landscaping.

(Planning application number: P2016/4805/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that an objection had been received from Historic England and the key points are summarised as follows:

o   Some elements of the proposed scheme would result in small improvements to the locally listed buildings however the scheme would result in harm to the conservation area, and that the heritage benefits of the scheme are minor and would not balance this harm.

o   Scale and design of the new dormer windows to the canal side elevation of No. 10 would be extremely dominant and would introducing an entirely alien, prominent feature to the roofscape.

o   The large extensions at the south end of building 10 would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building.

o   Creation of an expanded upper storey to building 12 will mean a dominant area of the building does not relate to this historically functional building’s original use.

o   Substantial alterations proposed to locally listed buildings would reduce the prominence of these important buildings in the street scene, and thereby reduce their legibility as industrial buildings and cause harm to the Regent’s Canal West Conservation Area.

o   Revisions should be sought to reduce the harm caused by the proposed works, particularly regarding the design of the proposed canal side roof structure and fenestration to building number 10.

·         The Planning Officer advised that a further representation had been received from the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLIAS) clarifying the extent of the windows on the canal-side elevations of buildings 10 and 12, as originally constructed.  The GLIAS also referred to evidence that the dormer windows to the canal-side elevation of building 10 were original features.  The Planning Officer advised that it is therefore likely that the dormer windows were original features of the building.  The Planning Officer further advised that the dormer windows currently provide little benefit in terms of daylight receipt to the existing accommodation and the top loft floor space is uncomfortable, suffering from poor daylighting and overheating.  The proposed dormer windows would therefore provide for an improved quality of internal accommodation whilst their design is supported by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer.

·         The Planning Officer reported that the Tree officer raises no objections to the removal of the alder trees which as they have reached their growth potential and represent a constraint to achieving a better overall landscaping scheme on the site. Furthermore, removal, coppicing and replanting of the trees is not a realistic option.

·         The Planning Officer advised that detailed plans had been received which satisfactorily addressed concerns raised by the council’s accessibility officer.  A fire evacuation strategy should be secured by condition.

·         The Planning Officer advised that a resident of Ice Wharf has raised concerns that the 4m high secondary gate to the vehicular access could provide unwanted access to his balcony.  The applicant has reviewed this arrangement and has agreed that the gate can be reduced in height to 2.5m, with details to be secured by condition. 

·         The Planning Officer advised that further objections had been received raising concerns regarding noise and disturbance from the restaurant during the hours when the windows are open.  Further objections had also been received from neighbours on grounds detailed in the reports including visual impact, excessive height, loss of daylight and sunlight, increased noise and disturbance, design that is out of character. 

·         The Planning Officer advised that a letter had been received from the local MP seeking an assurance that daylight and sunlight impacts will be fully considered in assessing the application.

·         The Planning Officer highlighted typographical errors in the report, listed as follows:

o   Agenda Page 144, paragraph 11.52 –the BRE Guidelines stipulate that [delete the remainder and replace with] “diffuse daylighting of the existing building may be adversely affected. This will be the case if either:

§  The VSC measured at the centre of an existing main window is less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value

§  The area of the working plane in a room which can receive direct skylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value.”

o   Top of page 148 – [delete] ‘no real noticeable loss of daylight’ [and replace with] ‘diffuse daylighting of the existing building may be adversely affected’. The same correction is required to the top of the table on page 157.

o   Page 146 paragraph 11.62 the properties listed also achieve full compliance with the NSL / DD and therefore these properties do achieve full compliance with the BRE as they pass both daylight tests and therefore accords with the correct application of BRE. In checking these, we have identified that there is one room within 31 Thornhill Bridge Wharf (Room 2) that would experience a loss of 24.35% of Daylight Distribution and therefore must also be reported for failing one of the BRE tests.

o   Paragraph 11.67 [delete] ‘”and therefore these rooms should not experience a noticeable loss of daylight.”

·         The Planning Officer advised that VSC/NSL tables are provided to identify that there are noticable daylight losses in excess of BRE Guidelines to each window / room identified in the table. The ones shaded will experience transgressions under both the VSC and NSL assessments and will experience harmful loss of daylight.  It was explained that, whilst greater discussion is given over to those windows / rooms that fail both tests that is because the impact will be most significant to those properties. It was confirmed that the tables identify all rooms or windows that fail the daylight and sunlight tests (plus the additional room at 31 Thornhill Bridge Wharf) and that the figures presented were all correct. 

·         In the discussion it was advised by officers that the losses of daylight were some of the highest levels of loss brought to Committee in recent years, but that the reason it was brought was due to the assessment that owing to the Ice Wharf properties’ position in extreme closeness to the site boundary shared with the development site, those properties represented an unneighbourly relationship which when weighed against the benefits of the proposal including the 3000sqm uplift of commercial floorspace including 5.38% AWS for 15 years at peppercorn rent that for officers it tipped the balance towards a recommendation for approval.

·         It was also specified by officers for further information purposes that the losses equal to or in excess of 40% of VSC to windows numbered 14. Two of those windows would experience losses of 62% and 64%. In terms of Daylight Distribution, a total of 4 rooms would experience losses of greater than 40% with losses of 49%, 59%, 69% and 70% all to combined living / kitchen dining rooms.

·         In response to a question on whether the revised application had been referred back to the Design Review Panel for any updated comments, the Planning Officer advised that as most of the issues raised had been addressed through revisions to the scheme, Officers did not deem it necessary.

·         Residents of the Ice Wharf developments requested that the application be deferred as there were concerns about the impact of the proposal with regards to loss of light, loss of privacy due to its size, height, scale and massing. An objector was concerned that the loss of light to over 36 windows in the Ice Wharf development would impact on their quality of life and their amenity if planning permission was granted. It was suggested that deferring the item would allow Members the opportunity to visit and assess the impact of the scheme on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

·         With regards to concerns about the massing of the scheme, Members were advised that the applicant had removed the sixth floor from the previous scheme which represented a significant improvement to the scheme.  Members were also advised that privacy concerns could be satisfactorily addressed through a condition if planning permission was granted.

·         The applicant advised that in conjunction with Planning Officers, the scheme had been revised to address concerns regarding the height, scale and massing of the scheme. The applicant reiterated that the scheme would result in a high quality office development providing 5.38% of the overall office floor space as affordable workspace to be managed by a designated affordable workspace provider at a peppercorn rent for a period of 15 years.

·         Members acknowledged the site constraints and its challenges for the developer and welcomed the provision of workspace for small businesses and employment opportunities for local residents but had concerns in relation to the amenity of the Ice Wharf residents. Members considered that the level of harm to the residential amenities outweighed the benefits of the scheme as losses of daylight were significant.

·         Members agreed that the item be refused planning permission on grounds relating to scale and massing, impact on neighbouring amenity and harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

·         The Committee Members agreed that the exact wordings on reasons for refusal be delegated to the Planning Officer, to be agreed by the Chair.

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to refuse planning permission on reasons provided above.

This was seconded by Councillor Donovan-Hart and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out above, the wording of which was delegated to officers in conjunction with the chair.

Reasons for Refusal:

1.       The proposed development, by reason of its inappropriate layout, height, massing and proximity to nearby residential properties would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of these residential occupiers through loss of daylight and sunlight, loss of outlook and sense of enclosure. This harm makes the proposal contrary to Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy DM 2.1 of Islington's Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2013), as well as BRE 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice' (Second Edition 2011) and the benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh this harm.

2.    The proposed development and in particular the visually prominent new roof and inappropriate dormers, the excessive height and massing and its visual prominence, would fail to relate positively to its surroundings, would be harmful to the local townscape and to the locally listed building, and would adversely affect the setting of the Regents Canal West Conservation Area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2016, policy CS9 of Islington's Core Strategy 2011, and policies DM2.1 and DM2.3 of Islington's Development Management Policies 2013.