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)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer reminded the meeting that the application was presented at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 May 2020 where the item was deferred in order for the applicant to address issues relating to daylight/sunlight, the grey brick, the height, scale and massing of the development and the request for a better consultation to be carried out particularly with resident groups to address their concerns.

·       Members were advised that the Applicant had submitted additional supporting documents, however it should be noted that the scheme has not been amended in regards to the built form such as bulk, massing and height. 

·       On the issue of daylight and sunlight concerns, the meeting was advised that the applicant had submitted a document which included visualisations of the existing and proposed buildings, the mirror imaging exercise undertaken and a BRE compliant cutback scheme, and providing an overall summary of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

·       An addendum report has been published and a further 4 objections have been received raising similar issues as noted in the report.

·       The Planning Officer reiterated that these further representations include similar concerns that were raised when the item was considered at the last meeting, that the proposed development would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, specifically to sunlight/daylight.

·       Members were advised that on balance the harm to neighbouring amenity weighs against the scheme, however it is important to recognise the urban context in which the site is set and that some amount of impact is almost unavoidable in situations where buildings are close together.

·       Members were also reminded to note that the existing building is much lower than existing buildings on the opposite side of Margery Street as evident in the mirror massing exercise which was undertaken by the applicant using alternate targets (a methodology allowed by the BRE guidance) and acknowledging this would be within or very close to the BRE guidance. Members were informed that the units currently receive very high levels of light (more than would be usual in such a dense urban area), this is evident with all windows which face the site (except for Sherston Court) achieving a retained value of at least 18% in regards to Vertical Sky Component.

·       The Planning Officer acknowledged that in many cases, dwellings with rooms or windows impacted, these units also have other rooms and windows which will not be impacted. Some units are dual aspect and the main living areas face away from the application site, and this means the impacts will cause less of an issue for those units. Officers consider that there are circumstances in this case which mean that the weight afforded to this impact is moderated.

·       Meeting was informed that in terms of the materiality concerns, the applicant has proposed an alternative brick colour of yellow brick instead of the warm grey.

·       A Bagnigge House resident was concerned about the lack of sunlight to his and other residents dwellings, queried the information and figures reported in the tables as erroneous, especially as makes reference to nonexisting bedrooms on the ground floor. The resident also queried why consultation was not carried out, the impact of the height of the building as it limits light into residents living room and that that the building is not compatible with neighbouring buildings, requesting that the plant room on the roof should be in the basement. Objector enquired why the amended plan did not show any fire escape and was concerned with dust from the railway ventilation shaft especially on the health of neighbouring residents.

·       Another objector representing Margery Street Tenants and Resident Associated was concerned that applicant had not addressed the issues for which the item was deferred, except provide drawings that shows what needs to be done to address the loss of daylight and sunlight. The objector insisted that some residents would experience a loss of over 20% in daylight and sunlight and was particularly concerned with vulnerable residents. The resident queried whether permission had been granted from British Railway as it was their land.

·       Another objector was concerned about being provided with the wrong date to respond to the revised plans. Issues raised included noise as a result of construction activities, the length of demolition activities and that worrying for most neighbouring residents was that residents would have resort to the use of artificial lighting as the scheme would result in loss of daylight. Objector was concerned with the height of the development, describing it as oppressive to residents and that the area has no demand for office spaces especially as there are lots of empty office spaces.
 

·       In response, the agent reminded members that the proposal is considered to have responded to the comments raised by the DRP on issues such as scale, height and massing, detailed design and that it has been designed and revised to mitigate the impact upon neighbouring amenity and nearby heritage assets.

·       The agent informed members that since the last meeting, the application has proposed a yellow colour instead of the warm grey colour, however acknowledging that nothing has been be done with regards to the height of the scheme, explaining the mirror massing of assessing the loss of daylight and sunlight, and reminding members that in understanding BRE transgression it is important that the scheme be viewed as a site within a built up area.

·       On the issue of consultation, the agent informed members that consultation was undertaken, an exhibition was held, leafletting occurred to neighbouring homes and ward councillors were written to.

·       The agent reiterated the planning benefits from the scheme as stated in the report, the increase in work office space; affordable work space; financial contribution towards employment and training for local residents; and improvement in the public realm.

·       During deliberation, the Chair acknowledged his disappointment that the  BRE mirroring massing presentation provided by the applicant demonstrated the extent to which the building would have to be cut back in order to make all existing windows BRE compliant,  whereas the essence of the reason for the item being deferred was not to  achieve full BRE compliance, but to make some improvements over the proposal previously presented.

·       A member was concerned that the only difference from when the item was deferred, was the revised colour change to the scheme and did not think a deferral would help as issues of loss of daylight and sense of enclosure had not been addressed, suggesting a refusal.

·       The Chair suggested that the scheme was not acceptable due not only to concerns about daylight and sunlight loss but also other factors such as the design and appearance, impact on neighbouring heritage assets, and amenity impacts.

·       Committee agreed to delegate the exact reasons for refusal to planning officers and the Chair.

Councillor Poyser proposed a motion to refuse planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Mackmurdie and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set below , the wording of which was delegated to officers in conjunction with the chair.

REASONS:

1.    DESIGN:

The proposed development, by virtue of its design and in particular the horizontal emphasis of the street facing elevation, and including the materiality, cube entrance, height, bulk and scale result in a building which fails to respond to the local context, appears overly dominant in the street scene and would be an incongruous and visually intrusive form of development. The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene and harmful to the visual amenity of adjoining sites and the public realm and contrary to London Plan (2016) policies 7.4 and 7.6, Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) policy CS9, Islington’s Development Management Polices (2013) policy DM2.1.  The benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh this harm.

2.    HERITAGE IMPACTS

The proposed development by reason of its bulk, scale, design and proximity to Grade II listed buildings on Yardley Street and to the New River Conservation Area   would result in an overly dominant feature that is harmful to the setting of the Grade II listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, failing to be sympathetic in form and scale to the local identity.  The harm is not outweighed by public benefits and as such the development is contrary to London Plan (2016) policy 7.8, Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) policy CS9, Islington’s Development Management Polices (2013) policy DM2.3.

3.    AMENITY IMPACTS

The proposed development, by reason of its inappropriate layout, height, massing and proximity to facing residential properties would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby residential buildings through loss of daylight receipt experienced by those properties, loss of outlook and sense of enclosure. This harm makes the proposal contrary to policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), policy DM2.1 of the Development Management Policies (2013) as well as BRE ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice’. The benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh this harm.

4.    S106

The applicant has failed to provide measures to mitigate the impacts of the development through enhancements to services and the environment necessary as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of affordable housing, affordable workspace, public realm improvements, Compliance with the Code of Employment and Training and Code for Construction Practice, contributions to mitigate employment, training and accessible transport impacts, provision of a Travel Plan, removal of redundant drop curbs, a bond to cover the cost of repairs to the footway and highway, a charge for offsetting CO2 emissions, a Green Performance Plan, connection to a local energy network is viable). The proposal therefore conflicts with London Plan (2016) policies 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 3.8, 4.1, 4.3, 4.12, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 5.18, 6.3, 6.4. 6.5, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2 and 8.2, Islington’s Core Strategy (2011) policies CS7, CS8, CS10, CS12, CS13, CS14 and CS18, and Islington’s Development Management Polices (2013) policies DM2.1, DM4.1, DM5.1, DM5.4, DM7.1, DM7.2, DM7.3, DM7.4, DM8.2, DM8.3, DM8.5 and DM9.2.