Agenda item

Refurbishment and extension of existing building including additional seventh floor level as well as an extension to the rear of the existing building (from ground level to roof level) and front and rear roof terraces at the upper level, replacement of the building's facade to accommodate retail (Class A1) / professional and financial services (Class A2) and office space (B1(a) use) on the ground floor and office space (Class B1(a)) in the remainder of the building, with public highway improvements and other associated works.

(Planning application number: P2018/1229/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the site is within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and also in close proximity to several statutory and locally listed buildings. In addition, the Planning Officer acknowledged that the site is within an Employment Priority Zone in the CAZ and the provision of high quality Class B1 office accommodation is consistent with the aims of the development plan

·         Members were advised that the proposal will provide an additional 1,897 square metres of floor space and 150 square metres of flexible retail/professional and financial service floorspace and details of facing materials to be used will be submitted and approved as noted in condition 3 of the report.

·         The Planning Officer noted the financial contributions which will be secured by the Head of Terms, including a contribution towards the landscaping enhancements and other financial contributions towards improving the existing footways along St John Street; a more accessible entrance to the building as well as towards Affordable Workspace and Affordable Housing.

·         The Planning Officer reminded members that as the site is located within the setting of listed buildings and within a conservation area, it is important that the impact on these heritage asset be assessed in line with the Council’s statutory duty to preserve and enhance heritage assets. The Officer highlighted the issues raised by the Design and Review Panel and that they have been addressed with subsequent revisions.

·         With regards to privacy concerns, the Planning Officer informed members that adjoining buildings to the rear are currently occupied for office use and that in terms of overlooking the criteria differs when considering an office development compared to residential development. In addition, the Planning Officer acknowledged the potential for overlooking from roof terraces, however in this instance due to the location of the roof terraces, the proposal is considered not to result in any significant privacy loss.

·         The objector, whose firm occupies the floor space in an adjacent building was concerned that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable impact on his firm’s business which requires daylight. The objector informed members that he had not been not consulted about the proposal by the Applicant, and had only found out about the scheme through the planning consultation.  He advised that he had recently renewed his lease for another 5 years. In addition the objector stated that information provided about the scheme was misleading especially regarding the separation distance from the extension.

·         In response to objectors claim about inaccurate plans, drawings and separation distances, the Planning Officer clarified that all plans and drawings on the website are accurate and to scale, which has been confirmed with site visits. Members were informed that planning officers are not privy to contractual arrangements between landlords and objectors, which in any event are not planning matters, and that the statutory consultation was carried out.

·         On the issue of the sunlight/daylight assessment methodology employed by the applicant, members were informed that BRE testing had been employed to the residential dwellings but general guidance was applied with regards the office developments. The Planning Officer requested that reference in paragraph 10.93, that BRE testing had been carried out should be removed.

·         The Chair noted the views of the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, that there is some harm to the visual appearance and historic character of the Grade 1 Listed Church as well as the Conservation Area, and therefore great weight should be placed on this in the planning balance.

·         Members were concerned that BRE testing had not been submitted with the application in relation to the neighbouring office.  It was suggested that a BRE assessment should be undertaken so that members could know the impacts. Members agreed that the item be deferred so that the applicant carry out a BRE assessment and an opportunity for officers to clarify the assessment of impact to heritage assets.

·         The Chair requested a site visit for members in particular to understand how neighbouring occupiers may be impacted.

·         Councillor Poyser proposed a motion to defer item for the reasons noted above. This was seconded by Councillor Woolf and carried.

RESOLVED:

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