Agenda item

Temporary change of use of existing buildings to non-residential artists studios and exhibition space (Sui Generis) for a period of 5 years.

(Planning application number: P2022/4011/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       Planning officer informed the meeting of a number of updates since agenda was published.

·       Firstly meeting was advised that due regard has been given to the updated version of NPPF published 5 September 2023, changes which relate to an update written in ministerial statement, to update policy for onshore wind development in England, that officers can confirm that it is not material to its assessment of the application.

·       Also letter of objection has been received from local arts charity stating that there are too many artists which will impact on neighbouring amenity and affecting local charities in the area.

·       Also officers received letter from the Islington Society, agreeing with the officers recommendation of reasons for refusal and a provisional  timetable has been received by the Local Planning authority setting out the appeal process.

·       Meeting was advised that site comprises an area of approximately 1.47 hectares and occupies a prominent location to the northern edge of the Archway gyratory and is currently vacant.

·       Planning Officer advised that site was designated as the Holborn Infirmary Conservation Area in March 2014 and is considered to be ‘At Risk’ and is on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register and that the historic buildings on the site are locally listed and include the Holborn Union main range with its landmark central tower and administration block fronting Archway Road.

·       No detailed proposed internal layout plans have been provided for all floors to illustrate how the internal space within the existing buildings would be subdivided.

·       The proposal provides 17,561 sqm of temporary floorspace, that there will be 326 artist studios supplemented with exhibition space, lecture space, ancillary offices, site workshop and canteen. Meeting was advised that it is estimated for estimated 800 artists (approx. 2.5 per studio) and will be operating 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week and that it will be set up and managed by SET with other sites across London.

·       Planning Officer advised members that Local Planning Authority has received notification of the appeal for the Non-Determination (Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/23/3326166), therefore Authority will not be determining the application but the Planning Inspectorate.

·       Meeting was advised that in light of the applicant’s appeal, the report before committee is to agree the basis on which the council will defend its case at the appeal, that officers would have refused the application on 8 grounds had the appeal not been submitted.

·       Planning Officer advised that the key planning considerations are the Principle of Development, Land Use, Accessibility and Inclusive Design, Neighbouring Amenity, Fire Safety, Implications for Projected CIL Contributions and Planning Obligations and CIL.

·       Members were advised that firstly, the meanwhile use would be of a far greater scale than the limited local need for artists’ studios/exhibition space that has been identified by the Council, that it  would result in the over-provision of artist’s studios.

·       Also the proposed temporary use, by reason of its scale and intended period of occupation, could lead to significant numbers of occupiers being displaced into the surrounding area at the end of the temporary 5 year period with insufficient capacity for local re- accommodation.

·       Meeting was reminded that vacant site is subject to emerging Site Allocation, ARCH5, for residential led development which sets out that “given the very limited supply of development land in Islington, policies strongly prioritise the most urgent need, which is conventional housing”, that it is considered that the proposed meanwhile use, by reason of the 5 year period of use; its proposed scale; the extent of occupation across the site, its timeframe for roll out, that it would impede the policy priority for the residential led redevelopment of the site and the urgent delivery of conventional housing in the borough and reduce the incentive to deliver the housing as soon as possible.

·       In addition to the above, Planning Officer stated that the proposal also fails to provide adequate measures to address accessibility and inclusive design requirements and therefore fails to demonstrate that the proposal would result in inclusive, accessible buildings which meets the needs of intended occupiers and visitors. In addition, the proposal fails to provide sufficient measures to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed meanwhile use would achieve the necessary highest standards of fire safety and ensure the safety of all building users and visitors.

·       It was noted that the meanwhile use will have very substantial implications for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on future redevelopment as the proposed meanwhile use, which is expressly pending long term residential development of the site would result in a substantial reduction of the projected CIL contributions that future residential development would generate.

·       With regard to neighbouring amenity meeting was advised that representations were received from neighbouring residents raising objections in relation to undue noise and disturbance, and safeguarding and security. There was also concern that the excessive scale of use would result in adverse amenity impacts, including noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents, through the intensification of activity arising from the quantum of artist studios/ exhibition space; the extent of occupation across the whole site, and the intention to operate the use for 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week.

·       Finally, Planning Officer advised that in the absence of an appropriate Section 106 legal agreement, the application fails 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 terms of planning balance, the Planning Officer stated although there are benefits such as bringing the vacant buildings at Archway Campus back into active use and providing some economic, cultural and community benefit to Archway town centre and to the artists themselves and having an appropriate use for the vacant historic buildings on the site, which are locally listed, could also likely help with their physical condition, however there are adverse impacts as the proposal gives rise to a far greater scale than the local need and its over provision could result in significant number of occupiers being displaced at the end of the temporary 5 year period. It was also noted that the proposal would impede the impede the urgent delivery of conventional housing and reduce the incentive to deliver housing as soon as possible; the potential impacts on residential amenity; the insufficient provision of acceptable accessible and inclusive design measures; fire safety standards and the implications for projected CIL payments.   

·       In addition, members agreed to include in reason 2 that no succession plan has been put forward for when the meanwhile uses ends.

·       On the question on whether the applicant had produced any evidence of the high need/demand of actors and whether any strategy /plan was in place on the dispersal of artists after the end of a 5 year period, meeting was advised that no details on any of these issues was provided in the applicants submission, nor any mitigation measures.

·       Florence Trust representative informed the meeting that the opportunity to utilise a building on this site came as a result of being evicted from their site in 2019, that having approached Seven Capital who acquired the site, the trust will be able to provide affordable workspace for both local and international artiste , that it represents an opportunity to generate income for the trust with the hope that they would be able to purchase their own home and remain in Islington. Meeting was advised that there is a high demand for accommodation for artiste.

·       A director of a local art charity, Bomb Factory objected to the proposal that it is an example of art washing with their long term plan for building expensive apartments, that the proposal will destroy the local charities already doing good work in the area, that the temporary nature of the use was not in line with the CEZ ideals of creating a sustainable. Charity welcome officers recommendation to refuse planning permission.

·       During deliberation, members were concerned with scheme not having no step-free access to some of the studios which are marked on plans as accessible, or from some of the studios to the canteen; insufficient evidence of securing safe transport opportunities for disabled users with no accessible cycle parking and no convenient routes to accessible parking spaces; insufficient accessible sanitary/WC provision; that proposal fails to provide adequate measures to address accessibility and inclusive design requirements and, therefore, fails to demonstrate that the proposal would result in inclusive, accessible buildings which meets the needs of intended occupiers and visitors.

·       In response to comments by the inclusive Design Officer that the proposal would be a breach of the Equality Act, it was suggested that reason no 6 be amended to reflect the breach.

·       Members were advised that Officers would have recommended to Committee to refuse planning permission for the following reasons set out in Appendix 1 of the report and includes the following:

1.The proposed meanwhile use, which would facilitate up to 326 studios, is of a far greater scale than the limited local need for artists’ studios/exhibition space that has been identified by the Council.  It is therefore contrary to Policy HC5 of the London Plan and Policy R9 part B of Islington’s Draft Local Plan.

2.The proposed temporary use, by reason of its scale, and intended period of occupation, could lead to significant numbers of occupiers being displaced into the surrounding area at the end of the temporary period with insufficient capacity for local re- accommodation.  It is therefore contrary to Policy HC5 of the London Plan and Policy R9 part B of Islington’s Draft Local Plan.

3.The proposed meanwhile use, by reason of: (i) the period of use proposed; (ii) its proposed scale, (iii) extent of occupation across the site, and (iv) its timeframe for roll out, would impede the policy priority for the residential led redevelopment of the site and the urgent delivery of conventional housing. The proposal is therefore contrary to: (i) emerging Site Allocation ARCH5; (ii) with the urgent imperative to deliver conventional housing on the site reflected in the housing targets in draft Local Plan Policies H1 Part C and H2 Part B; (iii) CS12 Part B in the current Local Plan Core Strategy, which seeks to ensure continuous supply of land for housing; and (iv) emerging Policy R9 - Meanwhile/temporary use part B (i).

4.The proposed meanwhile use, which is expressly pending long term residential development of the site, would result in a substantial reduction of the projected CIL contributions that residential development would generate. It is therefore unacceptable as being inconsistent with the statutory scheme in relation to CIL.

The CIL contributions from the residential development are a necessary material consideration under s.70(2)(b). They are necessary for s.205 purposes. Granting this permission would significantly reduce those contributions with necessary planning consequences. The proposal would therefore hinder the council’s ability to address and mitigate future impacts on local infrastructure which would result from the future large scale residential led redevelopment of the site. As such the proposed change of use would result in a loss of enhancements to services and the environment necessary as a consequence of demands created by a residential redevelopment of the site, contrary to adopted Policy CS18 of Islington’s Core Strategy, Policy DM9.1 of Islington’s Development Management Policies related to infrastructure provision and contrary to the emerging Policy ST1 on Infrastructure Planning and Smart City Approach of Islington’s Draft Local Plan.

5.The proposed meanwhile use would, due to the proposed excessive scale of use, result in adverse amenity impacts, including noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents, through the intensification of activity arising from the quantum of artist studios/ exhibition space, the extent of occupation across the whole site and the intention to operate the use for 24 hours a day. The proposal is therefore contrary to London Plan Policy D3 and Islington’s Draft Local Plan Policies PLAN1 B, R9 B (iii) and DH5.

6.The proposal fails to provide adequate measures to address accessibility and inclusive design requirements and therefore fails to demonstrate that the proposal would result in inclusive, accessible buildings which meets the needs of intended occupiers and visitors. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy D5 of the London Plan, Islington’s Inclusive Design SPD, Policy DM2.2 Part A of Islington’s current Development Management Policies, and Policy PLAN1 (B iii) in Islington’s draft Local Plan.

7.The proposal fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed meanwhile use would achieve the highest standards of fire safety and ensure the safety of all building users. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies D5 and D12 of the London Plan.

8.In the absence of an appropriate Section 106 legal agreement, the application fails 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 (highway and footway works, parking bay relocation, employment and training, carbon offsetting, and Travel Plan), and as such the proposal fails to accord with policies CS10, CS13, CS18 and CS19 of Islington's Core Strategy (2011), policies DM7.1,  DM7.2, DM7.4, DM8.2, and DM9.2 of Islington's Development Management Policies (2013), and Islington's Planning Obligations SPD (2014) and the Environmental Design SPD (2012) as well as emerging Local Plan Policy B5.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to agree officer’s reasons for refusal. This was seconded by Councillor North and carried.