Agenda item

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5 storey building (plus roof top plant enclosure and further basement excavation to the existing basement/lower ground level), to provide for a total of 5,660sqm (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1a), along with a new substation, cycle parking and changing facilities, refuse and recycling storage, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

(Planning application number: P2019/3464/FUL)

The Chair informed the meeting that given the number of objectors to the application he would allow 5 speakers, in addition to considering the written submission and a submission from Councillor Nathan.

In the discussion the following points were made:

• The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the scheme had been revised, in order to take account of comments of the Design Review Panel and objections from residents.
• Following consideration of the report of the Planning Officer, discussion took place on the issues of loss of daylight/sunlight, mirror massing, design/height of the new building, the brick colour of the new scheme not being in keeping with the area, and the lack of adequate consultation with residents.
• The Planning Officer stated that the scheme had been revised to take account of the Design Review Panel comments in respect of the height of the building, and it was felt that whilst some properties would face a loss of light, the retained light would be acceptable.
• With regard to the issue of mirror massing, the Planning Officer stated that it given the scheme is within an urban area, that the existing building is low level type, the loss of light is not seen as a major transgression.
• On concerns about the use of the roof terrace, the Planning Officer referred to condition 7, that the hours of use has been amended to reflect that the roof terraces could only be used between the hours of 8.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m.
• In response to a question about the consultation process, it was stated that this had not been possible at pre-application stage due to confidentiality issues, however there had been consultation following this with residents.
• An objector referred to the loss of light to properties in Yardley Street and these properties were situated close to the new development and that it was felt that the loss of light contravened the guidelines. In addition, it was stated that the building was too high, and if appropriate consultation had taken place a number of the objectors concerns could have been addressed. He added that the proposed changes would be significant to residents.
• Concerns were raised with regard to the loss of light to both Bagnigge and St.Anne’s House particularly on the ground floors, and that there had been no provision for the Railtrack and TfL implications on the development. The development is adjacent to a conservation area, and to a number of residential buildings, and the fire escape provision was questioned.
• An objector stated that she was a resident of St.Anne’s House and the proposal for a roof terrace would particularly affect the living rooms of families who rely on natural light. The height and scale of the building was in her view unacceptable. Plants in dwellings be impacted by loss of light from the proposal. In addition, she stated that the proposed development in grey brick was not in line with the other properties in the area, which were mainly red brick.
• Reference was made to the objections from the Amwell Society, Mount Pleasant Forum and the Margery Street Tenants and Residents Association and that it was felt that the grey brick was incongruous to the area, and that whilst the development was an improvement on the existing site this did not mean that it was an acceptable development.
  
  
• Concern was raised with regard to the cube being proposed on the corner of Yardley Street as not visually acceptable for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists especially as they would be viewing a grey brick wall. Also the loss of daylight/sunlight to properties is not acceptable. The Objector was concerned that in some instances, the scheme  would result in a loss of light of 30% to many properties and 40% in some cases, which could have been avoided if residents had been consulted at an earlier stage so that they could work with developers on these issues to provide a more acceptable development.
• An objector stated that she lived in Attneave Street and that she was concerned by the proposed demolition of the boundary wall and expressed concern at the loss of light due to the height of the building, as this would affect the main living rooms of residents and their view.
• Councillor Nathan expressed the view that it was clear that residents were not satisfied with the consultation process and the development was not sympathetic to the area in his view. Councillor Nathan enquired whether the pandemic would result in the development not being fully occupied.
• In response to objections raised, the agent for the applicant responded that he was not aware of any sales at the moment, however this was a high quality development and presently could not respond as to whether the pandemic would have an effect on sales.
• The agent for the applicant stated that there had been a number of meetings with Planning officers and 4 meetings with the Design Review Panel, and the development had evolved as a result of these discussions. In addition the agent acknowledged the objections from the Design and Conservation officer in relation to the impact on listed buildings in the area, however it was felt that this was a high quality development from a high quality architect, and that the scheme also provided significant improvements to the public realm.
• On the issue of massing, the agent added that the development ranged from 2-5 metres high, which is due to the gradient of Margery Street. In addition the agent indicated that the choice of brick and the range of materials being proposed complemented the area.
• On the issue of amenity, the agent added that the proposal would not have been submitted to the Committee if it was felt that the daylight/sunlight issue had not been resolved satisfactorily, and the necessary guidelines had not been met.
• In terms of ‘overlooking’ concerns, the agent indicated that this was an improvement of the previous scheme, that would result in an improvement for the environment of residents. It was added that refurbishment of the existing site had been considered, however it had been considered that demolition was more appropriate.
• The agent added that in respect of the point raised relating to Railtrack and TfL discussions had taken place and there no concerns had been raised.
• In response to the concerns about consultation process, it was stated that a public meeting with the community had taken place in December 2019, and feedback had been ‘taken on board’, and the redesign of the scheme had taken account of these. The site of the development was one that tended to design itself, and it was felt to be a high class quality development.
• In relation to the point raised in relation to fire escapes, it was stated that a fire safety expert had been consulted and fire safety measures complies with building regulations.
• Meeting was informed that 1184 residents were leafletted in addition to local Ward Councillors, and 313 residents had been consulted as part of the formal consultation, and that 30 representations had been received. The agent stated that he felt that appropriate consultation had been carried out and copies of the application were also available on the Planning portal ‘on line’. It was accepted that part of the consultation had taken place over the Xmas period, however this reflected the timing of submission of the planning application. The agent stated that he felt that efforts had been made to consult local residents.
• In response to a question on design, the agent stated that adjustments had been made to the height of the building as much as possible, and part of the building had been built into the ground, and ceiling height had been reduced. The development had been designed in an urban context and it was felt to be acceptable in the location, and had been amended in the light of comments from the Design Review Panel.
• A Member expressed the view that there had been a number of concerns raised by residents and that these needed to be considered sufficiently.
• A Member stated that the arguments on both sides were finely balanced, however she was concerned about loss of daylight/sunlight issues and the development not being sympathetic to the surrounding area.
• A Member stated that whilst appreciating that the proposed development was an improvement on the existing building, there are still concerns about the grey brick being proposed, the daylight/sunlight issues, insisting that guidelines on light should be strictly adhered to. Members were advised that there were substantial light loss issues at the rear of the properties in Attneave Street, and added that he did not consider the use of mirror massing was acceptable. In addition, he felt that the consultation process had not been satisfactory.
• Members generally were of the view that there could be a more acceptable development proposed that would be more amenable to residents.
• A suggestion that the item be deferred in order for the applicant to address the issues of concern relating to daylight/sunlight issues, the grey brick/height of the development and that there should be better consultation undertaken with residents, particularly in relation to defined resident groups who had raised objections.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion to defer the application,. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried unanimously

RESOLVED:

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