Agenda item

Demolition of existing office building, save for retention of ground floor façade, and redevelopment to create new office three-storey/set back four-storey building with roof plant, landscaping, cycle parking and other associated works

(Planning application number: P2020/3058/FUL)
In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Planning Officer advised of two updates, that the applicant submitted supplementary information regarding the sunlight impact towards neighbouring properties at 216 Upper Street which indicates that the proposal complies with the relevant BRE guidance

·         Condition 3(b) relating to materials be reworded to read ‘window treatments (including sections and reveals, and details of the limestone surrounds for the upper floor windows) to a scale of at least 1:10. In addition ,condition 31 relating to flat roof will be reworded to read ‘ with the exception of the third floor roof terrace in relation to condition 29, the flat roofs of the development hereby approved, including the first floor rear terrace shall not be used as amenity spaces and shall not be accessed other than for maintenance 

·         In terms of land use consideration, the Planning Officer advised that the scheme would provide additional office floor space within the Employment Growth Area; on site affordable workspace and importantly the vacant site would be brought back into active use, that the scheme is supported by local plan policies.

·         Members were reminded that the building was registered for local listing in Dec 2020, following Committee’s resolution in November 2020 recognising its significance.

·         The Planning Officer highlighted the 3 options that were considered during the pre advice stage and that it is agreed that the proposal before the committee would result in minimal disruption to neighbouring residents and any heritage harm following demolition of the building.

·         Meeting was advised that the proposal will involve a substantial demolition of the locally listed former bank building, retaining only the ground floor shopfront, excavating and extending the basement so as to create a new three storey office building with a fourth floor set back storey and plant at roof level.

·         Officers considered that the retention of the ground floor façade is acceptable, noting that whilst some of the reinstatement of features are welcome, the proposal would cause some adverse impact in the loss of one of the front bays due to the provision of access to the substation at lower ground floor.

·         On the scheme’s harm to heritage assets, the Planning Officer advised  that the extent of the proposed demolition to the locally listed building would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and that the level of harm identified would need to be weighed against the merits of the design of the replacement building, as well as the planning balance of the whole application.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledged concerns about the daylight/sunlight loss to neighbouring properties of both 216 Upper Street and 18-22 Edwards Mews, that there were some transgressions however the overall impact is considered to be minor and weighed against the other planning benefits identified.

·         With regard to other neighbouring amenity concerns such as outlook and overlooking from roof terraces, the Planning Officer advised that condition 31 has been recommended to address the issue.

·         The Planning Officer reiterated that the scheme will comprise of 117sqm of on-site affordable workspace which is located at the lower ground floor level which represents 6.4% of the proposed GIA, which exceeds the 5% minimum requirement

·         Concerns about the proposed gate accessing the substation was noted especially as it is recessed into the façade of the building and the use of metal louvres instead of  glass.

·         With regards to asbestos concerns in the basement of the existing building, the planning officer advised of no evidence, but reminded members that if during the demolition process if this was identified this would be addressed safely via the Construction Management Plan 

·         In response to a question about the rooms which failed the daylight and sunlight test and the methodology employed, the Planning Officer reiterated that although no internal layout of neighbouring properties had been provided, Officers having examined the submitted daylight/sunlight information and the maps, that it would be reasonable to assess all the windows and rooms on the basis that they are serving as habitable rooms and not hallways or circulation areas.

·         It was acknowledged that although the proposed development would result in some level of reduction of daylight, none of the windows/rooms would be severely impacted by the proposed development.

·         In terms of privacy concerns, members were reminded that the 18m separation distance requirement is not applicable as the scheme is not a residential development nor does it have any habitable room. Members were informed that having reviewed the proposal and the separation distance between the site and the properties at Islington Park Mews, it is considered that there is sufficient separation distance (approximately 40m) between the buildings and that no harm would be caused.

·         In response to questions about biodiversity and possibility of future plans by the applicants to provide more trees, the architect reminded members that the rear of the site was not used as a garden nor for any form of outdoor amenity when the bank was the occupier, however the applicant has submitted details of green roofs and balconies, that the proposed green roofs to the rear of the building will provide additional green coverage of the site and mitigate the loss of the undeveloped yard at rear.

·         A suggestion that condition 12 be reworded was agreed, that the wording needs to specific, requesting the applicant to explore the possibility of providing additional green and brown roofs in conjunction with the Pv panels. Wording to be delegated to the Planning Officer and agreed by the Chair

·         The Chair has recommended condition 3 (material) to be amended to require the submission of the design details of the ground floor louvre/mesh screen for the access to the substation would need to be consulted with the Chair before the condition can be discharged.

·         The committee has also recommended a condition to require details of screening for the rear elevation to be submitted and approved, to ensure that the proposal would not adversely affect the privacy of the neighbours at Edwards Mews. Wording to be delegated to the Planning Officer and agreed by the Chair

·         A member welcomed bringing the vacant site back into active use, acknowledging it’s protection as a building of local significance

·         In response to the lack of provision of retail use on the ground floor, the meeting was advised of constraints within the building such as the lift core with the result that the floor space is insufficient for retail use.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Ibrahim and carried.

RESOLVED:

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