Agenda item

Demolition of the existing temporary buildings and structures and erection of a 12-storey building to provide flexible Class E floorspace at ground floor level and 281 student bedrooms and internal and external resident amenity spaces on upper levels, together with refurbishment of the railway arches and the existing 3-storey building fronting onto Holloway Road to provide Class E(g)(iii)/E(a)&(b) and flexible Class E floorspace, a new pedestrian route, landscaping and public realm improvements, disabled car parking, cycle parking and other associated works

(Planning application number: P2022/1943/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       Meeting was advised of a number of updates, that at paragraph 6.11 on page 22 of the report, the floorspace of No.252 Holloway Road should state 57sqm; also at paragraph 10.15 on page 42, the total proposed Class E floorspace equates to 1,675sqm.

·       Other updates include an additional planning obligation in paragraph 10.264 of the report and Appendix 1) requiring “the pedestrian route to be kept open at all times unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with statutory undertakers or security services” has been included.  Also planning obligation at paragraph 10.264, the wheelchair accessible parking contribution is £62k rather than £64k; that with regards to condition 14 (Appendix 1 – Recommendation B): the 5No. Railway arches reserved for retail / restaurant use is expanded to include Use Class E(c) as well as Class E(a) and (b) and finally condition 44 in the report (Appendix 1 – Recommendation B) should refer to a UGF on site of 0.35, rather than 0.3.

·       In addition to the above, meeting was advised that officers are of the view that in line with other student accommodation within the vicinity, a condition be proposed to ensure that it is restricted for that purpose only.

·       Meeting was advised that the assessment of proposed development includes its acceptability in land use terms; its design and heritage impacts; its impact on neighbouring amenity; highways and transportation impacts, including delivery and servicing arrangements and energy and sustainability of the scheme.

·       The Planning Officer advised that in land use terms, the scheme is acceptable, that  site is allocated for student accommodation (NH10); that the provision of Class E floorspace, including light industrial floorspace is in accordance with Site Allocation NH10 and the NPPF was acceptable; that the new town centre uses in the railway arches to provide active uses along the new pedestrian route is supported; that a total of 5No. railway arches governed by a Lettings & Management Strategy will ensure increased social value; that an enhanced public realm and a new route through the site is in accordance with Site Allocation NH10.

·       On the issue of design and heritage impacts , the Planning Officer noted that the proposed design has been commended by the Design Review Panel and is supported by the Council’s Design & Conservation Team; that it is of high quality design and the materials used will be secured through conditions 3 (materials), conditions 5 (external pipework), condition 23 (obscured glazing) and condition 36 (roof-level structures); that the scheme will have a neutral impact on the adjoining St Mary Magdalene Conservation Area; and on the grade II listed Holloway Road London Underground station as well as on nearby non-designated heritage assets.

·       Meeting was advised that although building is over 12 storey and about 45m high, the additional 3.35m is not considered harmful as it is within the context of the Emirates Stadium which is higher.

·       In terms of quality of student accommodation, the Planning Officer noted that it has a good level of accessibility with a PTAL rating of 6A, that floor to ceiling heights of 2.6 metres is acceptable, that the storage and circulation space is acceptable.

·       The Planning Officer acknowledged that limited number of student bedrooms at lower levels do not meet internal D&S requirements (5 of the rooms as measured by the ADF) however this need to be taken into consideration when weighed against the benefits of the scheme.

·       In terms of impact of the scheme on neighbouring occupiers, meeting was advised that there would be no adverse privacy or overlooking impacts given the distances involved between the site and neighbouring residential buildings and that in general noise and disturbance will be managed through conditions 10-12 and the submission of an agreed Student Management Plan.  Light pollution is to be controlled by conditions 13 and 33; crime and anti-social behaviour is to be mitigated through conditions 19 (Secured by Design),  26 (Pedestrian route) and 33 (Lighting and CCTV).

·       On-site servicing and delivery are to be managed through a Servicing & Delivery Management Plan which is to be agreed by condition 18; and construction impacts on neighbouring amenity is to be controlled and managed through condition 4.

·       Meeting was advised that site has a PTAL of 6A (Excellent), that the proposal utilises sustainable transportation, that the trip generation associated with proposed uses can be accommodated within transport network, that site lies in CPZ and it is a car free development – with exception of one wheelchair accessible parking bay. The Planning Officer noted that it is anticipated that in future there will be a potential increase in disable parking.

·       The Planning Officer advised that applicants have made a contribution of £62k to secure on street blue badge parking bays, that 274 cycle parking spaces will be provided with further cycle parking details secured via condition.

·       A Construction Management and Logistics Plan condition has been secured and that all repair works to footway/carriageway will be secured via S106. In addition there will be a new pedestrian route through site in compliance with site allocation

·       Meeting was advised that applicant has submitted a sustainable proposal with measures that will result in a 58% reduction in total CO2 emissions; that applicants have proposed a financial contribution of £170,619 towards carbon offsetting for the remaining CO2 emissions; that there will be a significant reduction of embodied carbon beyond GLA recommendations; that scheme meets A BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’ which is secured with intention to secure ‘Outstanding’ etc.

·       The Planning Officer advised that a total of 2295 letters were sent out with 40 objections received raising a number of issues highlighted in the report such as there is a significant amount of student accommodation in the local area leading to a transient population; that design is inappropriate and building too tall in context, unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy etc. Meeting was informed that 4 letters of support were also received.

·       The Planning Officer highlighted the planning obligations as stated in the report and include the provision of 35% Affordable Student Accommodation; agreed Student Management Plan has been submitted; that a financial contribution of £30k for off-site tree planting is secured via planning obligation; that the Carbon offset contribution of £170k is to be welcomed; that there will be 16 construction placements or employment/training contribution of £80k and that the pedestrian route will be kept open at all times unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority etc.

·       On the issue of the quality of students Accommodation, the Planning Officer noted that in terms of daylight and sunlight impact, 82% of habitable rooms comply with the most recent BRE Guidelines in terms of LUX levels, that all units would achieve a minimum of 1.5 hours direct sunlight, in line with latest BRE guidance.

·       In terms of planning balance  the planning officer acknowledged minor adverse daylight impacts as  limited number of student bedrooms on lower levels do not meet minimum internal daylight levels; the scheme will result in uplift in commercial office floorspace equating to 1,675sqm (Class E) floorspace and the refurbishment of the existing railway arches; the provision of high quality student accommodation is to be welcomed; that scheme will result in an increase in employment at the site, as well as the relevant jobs and training contributions etc.

·       With regards to concerns that the site not being designated industrial, and unable to deliver 50% affordable student accommodation, the Planning officer advised that matter was explored and according to site allocation policy, pending any other agreed local plan it is non industrial.

·       On the specific operating hours of use for the terrace, meeting was advised that condition 12 ensures that an Operation Management Plan provides details of access to and management of the roof-top amenity space. A suggestion on whether operating hours should be limited from 8am to 6pm was mooted but it was agreed that this should be left to negotiations between the different stakeholders.

·       A member raised concerns in particular around match days, as site is close to the stadium, library and the use of the arches and enquired whether there had been any thought given to its management of traffic flow and potential anti- social behaviour.

·       In response to a question on the railway arch reserved for public toilet and its management and accessibility for public, meeting was advised that there are no plans for public use but will be for users of the commercial units, however if members are minded a condition regarding it being open to the public can be included.

·       On the question of the student accommodation and number of students living there having no local connection, the meeting was advised that S106 legal agreement, ensures that there is sufficient letting arrangements for applicants to work with the Council and that local carers will be given priority via nomination rights.

·       In response to a question if the railway arches would be leased out at preferential rates and for a long duration, the Planning Officer advised that extra wording in the legal agreement could be included to state these rates are offered.

·       In response the agent welcomed the proposal, that it has been 3 years of hard work with Islington Officers, GLA and TFL, that DRP has welcomed its design and it has been an opportunity to bring back into use a derelict site, open up the public realm.

·       Agent acknowledged that commercial units operating within the arches will manage the toilets, that a condition is included for the management for the general use of the arches. 

·       A member enquired if it was possible to ensure that 5 dwellings identified as impacted by loss of sunlight and daylight are not designated for social housing.

·       In response to a question on whether the management plan conditions 18 (refuse and service delivery) and 42(railway arches) could be strengthened, as there will be different units, the Planning Officer advised that wording could be looked into.

·       An additional condition is recommended to require management details of the public toilet to be provided and to ensure there is public access to the facility.

·       It was recommended that additional wording should be inserted into condition 26 to specifically consider the operation of the LMU campus building and the impacts resulting from the football stadium within the management of the public route.

·       It was recommended that the 5No. student rooms that failed to meet this standard should not be affordable student accommodation and that floorplans would be required to be approved prior to occupation as part of the section 106 agreement, in order to ensure that none of those rooms with poor daylighting would be affordable student rooms.

·       It was concluded that the hours of operation of the roof terrace should be negotiated and agreed between the applicant and the LPA as part of condition 12. 

·       It was further suggested that condition 18 be strengthened in order to require detailed servicing and delivery information on the individual railway arches.

·       Finally, it was requested that specific reference be made to the railway arches that are subject to the Lettings and Management Strategy and provided at preferential rates and condition 42 to be updated accordingly.

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor North and carried.

RESOLVED:

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 the additional condition 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, the wording of which was delegated to officers; and subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or for it to be called in for determination by the Mayor of London.