Agenda item
48 Chiswell Street, London, EC1Y 4XX
Minutes:
(Planning application number:
P2023/3522/FUL)
Councillors Clarke and Wayne did not participate in this item
and not in meeting room as they were not involved when committee
took the decision to defer the item at the last meeting on
14th November.
In the discussion the following points were made:
·Planning Officer informed meeting that since the publication of the agenda an additional objection was received however additional issues raised had been addressed.
·Members were reminded that application ref: P2023/3522/FUL was considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 14th November 2024 and deferred in order to allow for further consideration of the location of the affordable workspace offer; for further consideration of the building height and to allow for further development and clarification of the applicant’s proposed contribution towards social value generating programmes.
·Meeting was advised that since the last meeting, applicant has submitted the following additional supporting documents: Affordable Workspace Options, prepared by Make, dated 25/11/2024; a Draft Social Value Plan, prepared by BEAM, dated 29/11/2024 and a Public Benefits document, prepared by BEAM, dated 28/11/2024.
·Planning Officer advised that the submitted documents outline the various locations within the development which were explored for on-site affordable workspace provision, provide an overview of the public benefits of the proposed scheme and clarify how social value would be generated from the site.
·With regard to the affordable workspace provision, the Planning Officer advised the meeting that following on from Committee’s concerns about the lack of on site provision, further consideration was given to providing affordable workspace on-site. All possible locations for affordable workspace in the development were explored, in accordance with Local Plan Policy B4, Part H(i). In accordance with supporting paragraph 4.54 of the Local Plan, a policy compliant off-site contribution was agreed following engagement with the Council’s Inclusive Economy team. It is, therefore, considered that the application complies with the development plan insofar as it relates to affordable workspace.
·On the building height and it’s massing, meeting was advised that officers and applicants explored the possibility of amending the proposed building height with the applicant and no amendments to the height of the building have been proposed.
·The Planning Officer acknowledged that the existing building at 48 Chiswell Street is 31.82m, making it a tall building according to the definition set out in local policy and that through the proposed extension works, the building height would increase to 37.95 metres – an increase in height of 6.13 metres, or 19%.
· Planning officers advised that in land use terms the application seeking permission for a 5,134sqm increase in office floorspace is acceptable as it aligns with the Local Plan priorities for development within the CAZ and the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan area. It was also noted that this uplift would accord with Site Allocation ref: BC40, which identifies the site as being suitable for an intensification of office floorspace and indeed the justification for the allocation is to intensify officer floorspace.
·Meeting was advised that the proposed increase of 5,134sqm office floorspace on the site represents a c.40% uplift compared to existing. Whilst achieving this uplift would require a 19% increase in height, this uplift would make a meaningful contribution towards the identified need for business space in the borough, supporting the aims and objectives of the Development Plan in this regard.
·With regards sustainability and whole life carbon, meeting was advised that the proposed development retains 75% of existing building structure, noting that the whole life carbon score is 18% below GLA’s aspirational benchmark.
·On concerns about the building height, meeting was advised that the proposed design has responded to DRP feedback, that this is achieved by the upper floors being set back to minimise impact to listed buildings, and the ‘nose’ element of building set-back from existing building line. It was also stated that the improved architecture would contribute to local townscape and that the building will be better neighbour to the surrounding listed buildings and cause less than substantial harm in planning balance.
·In response to committee’s concerns that the proposed additional benefits, as set out in the Heads of Terms, were hypothetical and too vague for it to be considered within the planning balance, the Planning Officer informed meeting that the applicant has worked closely with the Council to develop a draft ‘Local First’ Social Value Plan, which sets out how the agreed programmes would directly relate to the proposed development, and which quantifies the amount of social value that would be generated through the implementation of the plan.
·Planning Officer stated that the draft Social Value Plan, outlined in the addendum report would be secured through condition 2 and a final document would be secured through an obligation in the S106 agreement.
·Meeting was informed that the draft Social Value Plan sets out the developer’s commitment to ensuring the development generates social value from the site to the benefit of local residents and enterprises. To ensure that the social value generated from the development is maximised and to ensure that the plan is directly related to the tenant business and responds closely to local needs, the S106 legal agreement will secure adherence to a final Social Value Plan, which the applicant would be required to submit for approval six months ahead of payment of the first instalment of the Social Value Plan Contribution. The s106 agreement will require consultation with elected Members to take place prior to the approval of the Plan. This will include consultation with the Executive Member for Inclusive Economy and Jobs and Ward Councillors.
·Meeting was advised that through the submission of a Social Value Plan and the applicant’s contribution towards its implementation, the proposed development would generate £1,835,036.40 in additional social value in the local area over a three-year delivery period, and should be considered as a significant public benefit, which is considered to help mitigate the identified harm in the planning balance.
·The final Social Value Plan shall confirm how social value generated from the site is maximised through the delivery of a programme of activities directly aligned with local needs. The final Social Value Plan shall also confirm how tenant businesses shall be encouraged to participate in social value generation. Approval of the final Social Value Plan would be subject to consultation with the Ward Councillors and the Executive Member for Inclusive Economy and Jobs.
·The applicant would be required to submit an annual report for the duration of the implementation of the Social Value Plan based on quarterly monitoring updates.
·In terms of planning balance, the Planning Officer acknowledged the impacts of the development, especially that the proposed 6m height increase would result in a tall building on a site with no tall building allocation, will result in minor level of less than substantial harm caused to neighbouring heritage assets and neighbouring amenity impacts relating to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.
·The Planning Officer reiterated the numerous benefits of the development having good sustainability credentials achieving BREEM Excellent and improving upon the GLA’s aspirational Whole Life Carbon score by 18%. In addition it was noted that the scheme would result in a considerably improved architectural treatment and materiality; improved public realm provision; removal of all on site car parking and securing a ‘Local First’ Social Value Plan of £1,835,036.40.
·A neighbouring resident requested that Committee refuse planning permission on two grounds namely loss of privacy and loss of sunlight which will impact their amenity. Objector reminded members that application was deferred to address a number of issues, one of which was the two floors which has not been addressed, that the building being proposed remains a tall building in a residential area, and that there is an assumption that affected windows were bedrooms.
·A second objector acknowledged the engagement of the applicant team since the last meeting on potential noise emanating when roof terrace when in use and light pollution concerns. Objector stated that on the overlooking concern from the terrace, applicant had suggested that this will be addressed at the detail design stage, that this should be secured with a condition in case the site is sold on in the future. In addition the objector requested that the request for an automated blind to address light pollution from the office be delivered in the first section of the office building which is opposite the bedroom.
·In response, the applicant stated that following the application being deferred, the team in conjunction with the Council’s inclusive Team have now produced a draft Social Value Plan with clear details, that an off- site contribution towards the provision of affordable workspace has been offered. On the issue of height, the applicant reiterated the set-backs that have been introduced on some of the elevations having taken into consideration DRP comments that the massing in those particular areas were having an impact on heritage assets.
·The Chair in summary noted the acceptance of the Inclusive Economy Team of the off- site contribution towards addressing the lack of affordable workspace. Chair acknowledged that the Draft Social Value Plan is to be welcomed as more specific details have been included, however there still remains the issue of the building height, which has not been addressed, noting applicants efforts by introducing set back, however concerns raised by council officers during the pre-advice stage and comments by the Design Review Panel is difficult to ignore as the tall building is a departure from the Local Development Plan.
·Another member welcomed the details provided in the draft Social Value Plan but was concerned that the loss of sunlight to neighbouring residents should not be disregarded as that will impact on their quality of life.
· The member was concerned that applicants had not provided a modelling to demonstrate that a compliant scheme would be affected by reducing the height of the building and that application be deferred for applicant to address the issue of height of the building and massing.
·Councillor North proposed a motion to defer the application. This was seconded by Councillor Hayes and carried.
RESOLVED:
That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.
Supporting documents:
-
P2023_3522_FUL - Addendum to Committee Report_ FINAL, item 146.
PDF 667 KB
-
Map P2023-3522-FUL 48 Chiswell Street, London, EC1Y 4XX, item 146.
PDF 430 KB
-
P2023_3522_FUL - Appendix 3 - Original Committee Report, item 146.
PDF 17 MB
-
P2023_3522_FUL - Appendix 4 - DRAFT Local First Social Value Plan, item 146.
PDF 392 KB