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:

·         Members were reminded that at the meeting on 15 October 2019, a decision was taken to defer so that the applicant could carry out a BRE assessment of sunlight/daylight impacts to the neighbouring commercial building; officers to consider the impact of the proposal on heritage assets and for a site visit by members to understand the impact of the scheme on neighbouring occupiers.

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that applicant had undertaken a sunlight/daylight testing and members had attended a site visit to the neighbouring property. Meeting was informed that in addition to addressing objector’s concerns, the applicant had submitted revised plans and elevations.

·         The Planning officer highlighted changes to the scheme since it’s consideration at the last meeting. The changes included the reduction to the building envelope; the increase in separation distances to neighbouring buildings to the north and west and a contextual analysis examining gaps between buildings was highlighted.

·         The Planning Officer reiterated the Council’s Design Officer’s view, that some harm to heritage assets would occur, however this is to be weighed against the public benefits that will arise from the scheme and includes a mix of uses and off site contributions towards housing and affordable workspace.

·         In terms of daylight loss, meeting was advised that test shows that 1 window at each floor at 42-47 St John’s Square would see reductions in VSC beyond the BRE guidance, however officers consider that the weight afforded to the transgressions is at the lower end of the spectrum. Similarly, with 159 St John’s Street, 5 windows on the 1^st to 3^rd floors and 1 window at the 4^th floor would see reductions beyond the BRE guidance. The Planning Officer acknowledged that although the reductions range between 30% to approximately 70% and impacts weigh against the scheme in the planning balance, it was noted that at the first floor the windows are generally to large open plan area used as a kitchenette and break out space (which is not as sensitive as residential accommodation).  

·         With regard to sunlight loss, the Planning officer advised that applicant’s revised plans setting the building further away from neighbouring properties (6m from 159 St John’s Street), has reduced the impact to the neighbouring occupiers in terms of both light loss and outlook. The increase in separation distance between elevations has improved the light.

·         Members were reminded of the statutory duty requirement in assessing the impact of the proposal on the heritage assets, and the Council’s Conservation Officer views that the extensions to the building will cause some harm to the setting of the Grade 1 Listed Church and the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area as a result of the additional visual prominence of the additional massing. Members were informed that there is a requirement that the impact of the proposal on the heritage assets be very carefully considered.  If the overall heritage assessment concludes that the proposal is harmful then that should be given ‘considerable importance and weight’ in the final balancing exercise having regard to other material considerations (including public benefits).

·         Enhancements have been proposed to make the scheme more accessible. Additionally, £75,000 of funding from the applicant would be provided to  cover the cost of a heritage lead landscaping scheme to St John’s Church Yard. In addition the footway to the front of the site is to be altered so that access into the building for wheel chair users will be greatly enhanced which will be secured by a planning obligation.

·         Other benefits from the scheme include an offsite contribution of £871,724 towards delivery of affordable workspace and £216,320 which will be secured to help deliver affordable housing elsewhere in the borough. Members were advised that this is a car free development and the refurbished building proposed will be more energy efficient which is to be welcomed. The presenting officer drew members attention to the report which set out other benefits of the scheme.

·         During deliberation Members welcomed the applicant’s response in particular to objectors’ concerns regarding loss of sunlight by altering the footprint of the building and notable that the two elevations running parallel to one another. In addition the Chair acknowledged officers explanation of the impact on heritage assets with it’s revised building plans and separation distances 

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report 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.