Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a building (Use Class E) including basement levels and provision of Makerspace (Sui Generis) and flexible and mixed Use Class E / Sui Generis floorspace, highways, landscaping and public realm works and all associated and ancillary works and structures.

(DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN)

(Planning application number: P2024/0844/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·Planning Officer informed the meeting that since the publication of the report, representations has been received on behalf of one individual primarily raising procedural matters, noting that this is no new material planning issues have been raised.

·In addition to the above, meeting was advised that applicant has proposed to include W/C and Kitchenette within the makerspace; revised basement plan to include gender neutral lockers; additional annotation on rooftop level plan; provision of a further 6 short stay cycle bringing the total to 27 short stay cycle parking spaces on York Way.

·Planning Officer clarified the total number of long stay cycle parking space within the basement is 132 spaces rather than 127 stated in the report. Meeting was advised that all amendments have been accepted by the Council’s Inclusive design and Inclusive Economy.

·In addition to the above, Planning Officer reiterated that officers agree with the GLA assessment which notes the impacts on the wider heritage assets including the Kings Cross Conservation Area and a locally listed building.

·A correction to BREEAM, life sciences area will achieve a rating of ‘Excellent’ with an overall score of 75.11% rather than 83.50%, to be secured through condition.

·Site is located on the eastern side of York Way fronting Randell’s Road to the north and Bingfield Street to the south and currently consists of a former petrol station and car sales outlet, car wash and sui generis two storey buildings and structures.

·Meeting was advised that site boundary adjoins an empty plot at 57-65 Randell’s Road, with extant consent ref: P2015/2834/FUL for 6no. residential units and application site is not listed or locally listed and is not in a conservation area.

·Site is located in a highly urbanised area with a diverse mix of land uses and building types and heights, within the context of the site, including a substantial provision of residential and commercial uses within close proximity.

·There are purpose built residential developments opposite the site on the western side of York Way, in the London Borough of Camden at Rubicon Court and also Saxon Court. Rubicon Court has a building height of part 11 storeys, part 15 storeys and Saxon Court of part 8 storeys, part 16 storeys.

·Planning Officer informed Committee that site is heavily constrained below ground, with major railway infrastructure lying directly below the majority of the site.

·Planning Officer advised that key planning considerations include land use, design and appearance, neighbouring amenity, transport and highways, energy and sustainability and planning balance.

·In terms of land use consideration, the proposed use will include the erection of a new eight storey commercial building providing approximately 16,000 sqm of lab-enabled office floor space on the upper floors, that the lab-enabled office floor space would provide a Life Science use of comprising of laboratory floorspace and office write up space.

·Meeting was advised that the key elements of the ground floor include the ‘Makerspace’62sqm (GIA) of floor space for the community as education and training uses, the ‘Randell’s Room of 537sqm(GIA) proposed as flexible Use Class E /Sui Generis floor space with the intention to create a space that can accommodate a range of community events and outreach programmes throughout the year, managed and programmed via a booking process with openings available to a wider groups of organisations including local groups, societies and education providers.

·With regards the provision of affordable workspace, over 1500sqm of dedicated affordable workspace at first level and associated meeting at ground floor.

·Planning Officer advised that the proposed redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use business led development, accords with the site allocation justification which seeks business-led, mixed use development which prioritises the intensification of business uses. The site allocation identifies that the Islington Tall Buildings Study suggests the north-western part of the 176-178 York Way part of the site would be an appropriate location for a local landmark building of up to 12 storeys (37m). In rising to a maximum height of 43m including plant screening, meeting was advised that the proposed development therefore exceeds the prescribed height within the site allocation, which is a departure from the development plan.

·Planning Officer noted that the scheme has been advertised as a departure from planning policy. In order to offset the lack of compliance with of the height aspect of the site allocation, it becomes necessary to generate and consider a list of planning benefits to weigh up against these contraventions.

·It was noted that a range of benefits many of which will be secured through a legal agreement include substantial provision of affordable workspace, the provision of an event space that can be used by the community and community groups (Randell’s Room), a community training space (makerspace), contributions towards CO2 offsetting and accessible transport provisions.

·The proposals includes extensive public realm improvements surrounding the site on Bingfield Street, York Way, and Randell’s Road, including highways improvements, and the introduction of hard and soft landscaping, and the pedestrianisation of part of Bingfield Street.

·In terms of highways and Servicing, the scheme will comprise the delivery of a dedicated off-street servicing yard accessed via Randell’s Road, the provision of dedicated cycle parking spaces and end of trip facilities with showers and lockers

·On the issue of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity, building has been designed with amenity protection as a key aim, that the stepped eastern elevation minimises daylight and sunlight impacts to existing buildings.

·In terms of outlook, sense of enclosure and privacy, meeting was advised that proposal is sufficiently set away from neighbouring residential properties and separated by established highways.

·Planning Officer stated that concerns about noise and disturbance, plant and equipment mitigation measures are considered acceptable by Environmental Health Officers subject to conditions.

·Planning Officer advised that at roof top level, located above seventh floor level, plant equipment and associated screening is proposed as well as a further roof terrace. There is a plant screen of approximately 6 metres which is recessed from each façade except in the northwestern corner of the site.

·On the issue of Energy and Sustainability, meeting was advised that the proposal will result in 11.6% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions (2013) baseline and 28.3% reduction in total emissions; that a carbon offsetting contribution of £378,363 is secured by condition.

·In terms of sustainable design standards, planning officer stated that office area will achieve a BREEAM rating of outstanding with a score of 86.26%, life sciences area will achieve a BREEAM rating of Excellent’ with an overall score of 75.11%, with a condition attached requiring reasonable endeavours to achieve an Outstanding rating.

·The scheme proposes a solar PV arrays totalling a 203sqm, a condition is attached regarding Solar PV outputs and potential for any increases to overall solar PV capacity. Final Green Performance Plan secured through s106.

·In addition to the above, whole life-cycle carbon assessment has been submitted by applicant which complies with London Plan Policy. Also Circular Economy Statement and an updated Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy is required by condition with no objection from Thames Water.

·Planning Officer stated that on planning balance considerations, the scheme fails with the non-compliance with the development plan with the building height exceeding the height of the site allocation by 6 metres; a limited extent of adverse residential amenity impacts and not meeting the CO2 reduction targets, so there is a requirement to provide public benefits to offset this harm as listed below.

·Meeting was advised that a total financial contribution of £150,000 over 5 years has been secured, an annual contribution of £30,000. £20,000 per annum will be given to a Community Investment Fund to be allocated to the NLP4Kids programme with EGA and Vittoria and a further £10,000 per annum through a flexible fund to be awarded to multiple organisations aligned with the social value goals agreed with LBI at the beginning of each year

·As stated above the provision of ‘Randell’s Room’ made available for a period of 10years; provision of the Makerspace for Education use, a 62sqm offered at peppercorn rent for a period of 10years; significant public realm improvements surrounding the site.

·In summary planning officer stated that the significant planning benefits offset the harm and have been secured through planning obligations and include a building of high quality architecture, significant intensification of business use floorspace as Lab-enabled office floorspace; provision of over 1,500sqm of affordable workspace in perpetuity and contributions to carbon offsetting , employment and training, short stay cycle spaces in the public realm and accessible transport contributions.

·On Air quality concerns, the committee chair suggested to members that the air quality condition besides requiring the applicant to submit an Air quality report, should be amended to also include computer modelling of the impacts of exhaust air from the building’s AHU’s.

·An objector with connections to the adjoining site was concerned with planning officers assertion in his presentation that no new material planning objections had been received, noting that a recent letter sent by them did raise some additional issues. Also objector had concerns about delays for a decision by planning officers with their own application which is for the site adjacent to the site being considered by the committee and that the development would prejudice their scheme. Also claims that they had not been consulted despite being on the list of consultees, requesting that the application be deferred. Another objector raised issues about the site allocation justification and the impact of the proposed scheme on their own site.

Planning officers advised that the scheme had been designed in such a way that it would not prejudice the delivery of the previously consented scheme on the adjoining site.

In response to the objector’s claim, applicant advised that its design has been undertaken in a way so that it does not compromise their neighbouring site noting that from the onset that there were conversations with a view of including the land within their site but to date these conversations had been unsuccessful.

·With regards to overlooking concerns from the roof terrace, meeting was advised that these are for use by the occupiers of the building for amenity purposes and has been designed in such a way that the planters limits users getting close to balcony edges.

·On the question of disparity of tenures between affordable work space which was offered in perpetuity and the offer of 10years for the ‘Randell’s Room’ and Makerspace, applicant advised that this could be increased to 25years.

·On the number of hours of community use of Randall’s room, meeting was advised that the wording on page 21 paragraph 6.12 should be amended to reflect that it be made widely available as it is not expressly stated in the s106 legal agreement.

·In response to the above, the applicant indicated that the use could be increased from 26 days to 40 days and reflected in the Head of Terms.

·Councillor Hamdache suggestion for an updated energy strategy to be reviewed in 10 years was noted.

·Councillor Hamdache moved the motion for an additional condition requesting for an updated energy strategy be provided in the next 10years. This was seconded by Councillor North. Members expressed concerns that there was no time specified for the use of the terraces. Members agreed Monday to Friday 8am to 8pm.

·With regard to delivery and servicing times, Committee agreed to delegate the wording to the planning officers On the concerns with the restrictions of the length of vehicles into the area and impact on highway safety, a member suggested that any servicing should be via the service bay designed into the scheme. Members were reminded that highways had no objections to the servicing arrangements. Committee agreed to amend the wording to require an updated DSP which shall be submitted and approved by officers in conjunction with the chair.

·In summary, members welcomed the planning benefits, the building and its design and the public realm improvements in an area that needs redevelopment.

·Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to an updated Delivery and Servicing Condition, an Energy Condition, together with updated Heads of Terms relating to the time period for the peppercorn rent of the Randell’s Room and the Makerspace updated to 25 years and that the Randell’s Room be available for a minimum of 40 days a year. This was seconded by Councillor Hamdache 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.