Rear and roof extensions
(including dormer windows) to 233-239 and 241-243 Pentonville Road behind retained front and side
facades following partial demolition; connection of 233-239 and
241-243 Pentonville Road with 172-176
King's Cross Road; provision of new and refurbished Office
floorspace (Use Class B1a); creation of
new retail unit (Use Class A1) at ground and lower ground floors of
241-243 Pentonville Road; replacement
shopfronts to Pentonville Road facades;
and associated servicing areas and plant.
Councillors Kay and Ismail did not participate or deliberate on this item as they gave their apologies and left the meeting
(Planning application number: P2020/0632/FUL)
In the discussion the following points were made:
· The Planning officer advised committee that the application relates to a number of buildings on the southern side of Pentonville road and the northern part of Kings cross road and that site is designated within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Kings Cross Key Area and the Northdown Road Employment Growth Area.
· Site is located within the Kings Cross Conservation Area and although buildings on site are not statutory listed, there are a number of statutory listed buildings adjoining and close to the site. Buildings on site are locally listed.
· Although the proposal seeks to partially demolish some of the buildings, it will still retain its primary and some secondary facades to provide refurbished office on newly connected floorplates including an extended basement level. The proposal also seeks to replace the existing shopfronts.
· Key planning considerations are its site history, land use design and appearance and impact on heritage assents, neighbouring amenity, transport and highways and energy sustainability.
· Members were advised that in terms of land use, the proposal will result in an increase in both office and retail floor spaces on site.
· The scheme has been revised in particular with a view of addressing outstanding concerns relating to scale, height, bulk, design, appearance and its impact upon heritage assets. Revisions have also been taken with regards to the design of the appearance of the rear extension and the roof pitch on the Pentonville Road buildings.
· Members were informed that a previous scheme was refused by the Council on 18 November 2016 due to loss of workspace suitable for small and medium enterprises, demolition of three locally listed buildings, mass and scale of buildings and the quality of the development. A subsequent appeal on 17 October 2017 was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
· Planning Inspector considered that the appeal scheme was too dominant within the street scene along Pentonville Road giving the church a subordinate appearance which would erode its significance. In addition, members were informed that the Planning Inspectors had concerns regarding the demolition of locally listed buildings, describing it as notable and a regrettable loss of a non-designated heritage asset which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area.
· In terms of land use consideration meeting the Planning Officer acknowledged that the scheme is considered acceptable given the increase of office space which is identified as a priority use for the location in the CAZ and EGA
· Islington DM5.4 policy sets out the need for affordable work space which equates for 5% of the floor space and the scheme is policy compliant. In addition the proposal provides suitable sized units for SME’s located at ground floor level to the Kings Cross building and it benefits from the road entrance, cycle and refuse storage.
· Since the refused appeal scheme, the applicant has worked with Design Review Panel, noting that the revised scheme now proposes to retain the facade of Pentonville and Kings Cross elevation, thereby overcoming one of the reasons for refusal. Also the height, mass and bulk of both of the roof extensions have been reduced and the scale and proportions of the proposed dormer windows across the scheme have been revised in favour of diminution with the result that the scheme is not considered to unacceptably diminish the significance of a designated heritage assets and their setting.
· On the issue of the scheme’s impact on neighbouring amenity members, the Planning Officer advised that site is not bounded or near any residential areas as adjoining areas are places of worship, offices and visitor accomodation serviced apartments. A Daylight and Sunlight assessment was submitted and there is no reduction in daylight and sunlight levels beyond BRE guidelines to the nearest residential properties.
· The energy efficiency and sustainability proposals have been reviewed by Council officer, that the proposal will achieve a 52% reduction with the rest being offset by a financial contribution which will be secured by a condition.
· The Planning officer acknowledged that although the proposal would result in the partial demolition of locally listed buildings, the facade and key features are to be preserved. The Planning Officer noted that the benefits from the scheme is considered to outweigh any harm that it might have as it will result in an increase in priority employment use within the CAZ and Employment area.
· The Planning officer advised of an amendment to condition 20, to include further wording which protects the retail element of the scheme within Use Class E from being changed to another use through permitted development.
· The agent informed the meeting that the scheme will create more work spaces that will be attractive, flexible and fit for purpose and reminding the meeting that the aim of the project is to give life to the building by providing high quality office spaces. In addition committee was advised that the scheme also delivers affordable housing contribution, a more energy efficient and less carbon emission building, with retail units that enhances the street scene.
· The architect reiterated that the design outcomes follows discussions and advice from both the Design Review Panel and council officers, that the scheme is now considered appropriate for its settings, ensures the provision of high quality offices for SME’s and importantly restores the building back to its previous glory.
· Chair welcomed the revised scheme noting that is a well-designed building in comparison to the refused scheme in 2017 and is policy compliant.
· Committee agreed that the wording of condition 20 be amended which will ensure that retail use is protected, be delegated to the Planning Officer and to be agreed by the Chair.
Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.
That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, 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 as amended condition above, the wording of which was delegated to officers;