Agenda item

Alterations and extension at 6th and 7th floor levels of the University Building to provide an extension to the library as well as replacement of the glazing units on the 1st - 6th floor facades and associated works.

(Planning application number: P2019/1124/FUL)

An addendum to the officer’s report was laid round.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that the proposed development was adjacent to the Northampton Square Conservation Area and in the vicinity of a number of listed buildings.

·         The Planning Officer set out the representations received in relation to the application, as set out in the officer’s report and the addendum.

·         Since the report was published a request had been made to Historic England to list the building. The Planning Officer advised that this was a material consideration. If the request was successful then the applicant would need to reapply for the proposal under the Listed Building Act. Officers summarised the process followed by Historic England for determining if a building should be listed or not.   The Council’s Legal Officer advised that the scheme should be bought back before the Committee for reconsideration ahead of the decision being issued if the building was indeed listed.

·         It was clarified that paragraph 8.24 of the officer’s report, page 52 of the agenda pack, should read ‘The site is located to the north of Northampton Square and taking account of the orientation of the site to the sun, there wouldn’t be any undue impact to ecology or tress as a result of overshadowing.’

·         In response to a question, the Heritage Officer clarified that the Northampton Square Conservation Area was last reviewed in the 1990s. The Heritage officer discussed the heritage assets their special interest and how this was affected by the proposal.  The Heritage Officers conclusion was that harm was not caused to heritage assets.  The Committee discussed this and agreed that no harm would be caused.

·         Daylight / Sunlight assessments had demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

·         A previous application determined in 2013 required the site to be subject to a management plan, specifying matters such as hours of operation and security requirements. It was clarified that the management plan was still valid and would continue to be applicable should the application be granted.

·         Four objectors addressed the Committee. Objections included: that the height of the proposed development exceeded 30 metres and therefore was not compliant with the Finsbury Local Plan; that the proposed development was out of keeping with existing structure and in contrast to nearby heritage assets; that the development would affect local residents’ enjoyment of Northampton Square; that there had been inadequate consultation with local residents; that the development would lead to an increase in the number of students and a corresponding increase in nuisance and antisocial behaviour; that the building is of architectural importance and should be listed; and that the university did not operate the library in accordance with its management plan.

·         The applicant, the applicant’s consultant and the architect addressed the Committee. The following main points were made: the development would address the university’s shortfall in study space and would be very beneficial to students; examples were provided of the university responding to the concerns of the local community; the university had previously consulted with Historic England in 2009 and there was no suggestion that the building should be listed at that time; the architect had consulted with the original architect of the building, who had deemed the proposed development to be acceptable; incorporating plant within the building would improve the overall appearance of the building.

·         Members of the Committee considered the nuisance and antisocial behaviour issues associated with the use of the library, in particular the delivery of takeaway food late at night. The applicant summarised the measures taken by the university to minimise its impact on the local community. The Committee suggested that further work to improve the university’s relationship with local residents was required and councillors could look to address this outside of the meeting.

·         In response to a question, the applicant confirmed that the university did not have a conferencing function and there was no intention for the development to be used for hospitality purposes. The library was solely for the purpose of studying.

·         It was accepted that the removing of plant and antennae from the roof of the building would improve the visual appearance of the library, however expressed concern that antennae could be re-fitted under permitted development rights.

·         It was considered that the university’s plans for further development should be incorporated into a masterplan document prepared in consultation with Islington Council.

·         It was considered that the circumstances of the application justified the height of the building being taller than that specified in the Finsbury Local Plan. The benefits of the scheme were considered significant and to outweigh impacts associated with the height of the building being above 30m

·         It was advised that a condition prohibiting the delivery of takeaway food in the vicinity of the library would not be enforceable.  

Councillor Convery proposed an additional condition to remove the permitted development rights allowing antennae to be fitted to the building. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed an additional condition to specify that the building’s management plan should apply to the new development. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed an additional condition that the development should be used as an educational facility only. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed an informative that the building’s management plan should be updated in consultation with local residents. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed an informative that future applications related to the university should be in accordance with a master plan. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the additional conditions and informatives outlined above; and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report, the wording of which was delegated to officers.