Agenda item

Partial demolition, recladding and refurbishment of existing building alongside erection of two storey roof extension to provide Class E(g)(i) Office floorspace, alongside Class E(a) Retail use at ground level. The proposals also comprise the delivery of cycle parking at basement level alongside the provision of landscaped roof terraces, the installation of replacement plant equipment and associated enclosure, and all associated and ancillary works

(Planning application number: P2023/3522/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·Planning Officer advised that since the publication of the agenda, the Accessible Transport Contribution and the Employment and Training Contribution has been amended, that the new amounts secured are policy compliant and reflect the reduction in proposed floorspace made in the time since application was first submitted. Condition 5 has been updated to reflect the changes.

·The site is immediately adjacent to and partly within the Chiswell Street Conservation Area which contains an enclave of buildings dating from the mid-18^th century to the mid-19th century. It was also noted that site is opposite the Brewery Conservation Area and the Barbican Conservation Area and quite close to St Luke’s Conservation Area. In addition to above, Planning Officer stated that the existing building is quite prominent in the townscape and forms part of the setting if these heritage assets and that development of the site has the potential to affect the setting and significance.

·Key planning considerations include land use; design and appearance, building height, neighbouring amenity, transport and highways, energy and sustainability and planning balance.

·In terms of land use, meeting was advised that site is located in the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) and an international and national significant office location and is a site allocation within the Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan for the intensification of office floorspace. It was noted that the applicant proposed a 5.554sqm (GIA) uplift in floorspace compared to the existing building.

·Planning Officer acknowledged that the basement office floorspace would not benefit from exceptional level of natural light or external outlook as is achieved with the upper floors, noting that the space would be provided with dedicated access and adequate floor to ceiling heights and a well-considered layout.

·Meeting was informed that the Council’s affordable workspace team advised that the affordable workspace offered could be challenging to let due to its size and location in the basement. It was noted also that the applicant could not offer the space on the upper levels of the building where the location would be more attractive to prospective tenants.

·Members were reminded that whilst the policy position is to secure AWS space on-site, the Council’s AWS Team are satisfied that an off-site contribution is appropriate in this circumstance and that it will enable the AWS within the borough on other sites. Planning Officer stated that the amount has been agreed with the applicant and would be secured through an obligation within the S106 agreement.

·Meeting was advised that proposals are broadly consistent with local policy in terms of land use and would result in the intensification of office use within the CAZ and the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area

·In terms of design and conservation it is considered that the applicant proposes a high quality level of architecture with a much improved façade treatment and high quality materials which lends well to a better relationship with the street, strengthened legibility, an improved corner treatment with a more generous public realm, increased urban greening and new external amenity for future occupiers.

·Meeting was advised that the proposal represents a departure from the development plan as it would not comply with Local Plan policy DH3, relating to Tall buildings which states that buildings of more than 30m will be acceptable in principle only on designated sites. Also the increase in height leads to less than substantial harm to neighbouring heritage assets

·The proposed increase in massing and building height on the site would have a greater impact on neighbouring amenities when compared to the existing built form and it is acknowledged that there are negative impacts in terms of daylight. However, it is not considered that these amenity impacts are sufficiently harmful to justify a reason for refusal.

·The application proposes a number of energy efficiency measures and proposes to retain a very significant proportion of the existing building structure.   Whilst the proposed reduction in carbon emissions would be lower than policy requirements, it is accepted that this is a result of retaining the existing structure and on the whole, the energy and sustainability measures are considered to be a benefit of the scheme.

·On balance, the harm created by the breach of the tall building policy and the harm to heritage assets that results, is outweighed by the scheme benefits, notably the high-quality architecture and improved façade, and the range of community benefits agreed through the 106 (off-site contribution to affordable workspace to be secured by the council; employment and training benefits for the local community). The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement to secure suitable planning obligations and financial contributions in order to mitigate the impacts of the development.

·The applicant’s team has worked with council officers to refine the design, that the building line on Chiswell Street has been pushed back following officer advice so that it does not appear too dominant, close off street views or disrupt the established building line.

·Meeting was informed that the detailing and materials have been refined and the proposed cladding material is now a brown glazed brick which works well and compliments the colour palette and materials in the immediate context. Details and samples of the proposed brick work is to be secured through condition 3.

·With regards to the cladding and façade treatment, meeting was advised that applicant proposes to remove the existing cladding and introduce a new façade design which is considered an improvement upon the existing situation and would achieve a high-quality finish which would be much more contextually appropriate.

·Meeting was advised of the rear of the existing building as being already dominant and that the proposed development would include some additional massing and height in this area. Applicants have worked with Officers to refine this part of the building to minimise any adverse impacts on the neighbouring site.

·With regards the roofs and terraces, meeting was informed of limits to provide urban greening on the site because the building footprint covers almost the entire area however opportunities for greening have been maximised as far as possible through the provision of planted terraces and green walls. Also additional amenity space for future users is welcomed. It was also noted that the design of terraces and balustrading is well considered and would not result in any visual ‘clutter’ visible from street level.

·Planning Officer advised that the existing building has a height of approximately 31.82m above adjoining street level at its highest point and not including the outline plant equipment which could add up to an additional 3 meters in overall height. It was noted that the proposed development would result in a tall building which is taller than the existing tall building on site and on a site with no allocation for a tall building, hence it is advertised as a departure from the Local Plan.

·It was noted that despite some beneficial design refinements to the proposed building such as using complimenting materials, resulting in some minor level of less than substantial harm to the neighbouring assets, the harm principally results from the height and scale of the proposal and could only be eliminated by reducing the height and scale significantly.

·On the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity, planning officer that although a commercial building it is assessed as if it is a residential building, that a sufficient distance exists between the site and neighbouring amenities, that the proposed massing would not create an unusual or unreasonable relationship to surrounding properties in the surrounding area.

·In addition it was stated that as site is set away from neighbouring residential properties there are no overlooking and privacy concerns especially as windows on rear elevation would have narrow aperture and features deep spandrels to overlooking to Whitbread Estate.

·Meeting was advised that a noise report has been submitted which has been conditioned to address any issues from the plant equipment and any noise from the use of the amenity terrace, which is considered acceptable subject to conditions securing an operational management plan and restricting hours of use.

·On daylight loss, planning officer advised that results from the assessment show that properties within the Whitebread Estate , Sundial Court and Bunhill Row would experience some level of non-compliance with the BRE thresholds.

·Similarly with regards sunlight impact, analysis shows that of all the assessed properties 15 rooms would experience proportional reductions in Annual APSH in excess of 20%.

·It was also noted that 24 neighbouring amenity areas including the private amenity spaces of Whitbread Estate properties and the estates shared amenity space were tested for sun-on-ground and it shows that the private amenity spaces of one property in Cooper House and two properties in Shire House would experience considerable reductions in the amount of overshadowing experienced as a result of the proposed development.

·Planning Officer informed meeting that the submitted Daylight and Sunlight Impact Assessment confirms that all affected amenity spaces would achieve BRE compliance receiving at least 2 hours in 50% of the space by 11^th April and indicates that it is likely that unacceptable levels of sunlight occur for 6 weeks of the year.

·On the issue of transport and highways, meeting was informed that refuse store is located within dedicated servicing bay and delivery and servicing will use dedicated servicing bay within development.

·All on-site parking has been removed, there is a provision of 230 long stay cycle parking spaces, 42 short stay spaces and 28 accessible parking spaces.

·A number of energy and sustainability measures have been introduced with the result that there is a reduction of 19.3% carbon emissions and that a financial contribution of £118,100 has been secured from the applicant to offset the remining carbon emissions. The Scheme’s BREEAM rating is excellent, that the proposed PV array will generate annual power of 16,300 kWh. Planning Officer noted that the lifetime carbon is 953.4kg CO2/m2 which is 43% below the GLA’s WLC benchmark and 18% below the GLA’s aspirational WLC benchmark.

·In summary planning officer stated the impact of the development such as the tall building on site with no tall building allocation, limited daylight and sunlight impacts, overshadowing of Whitbread Estate amenity space and less than substantial harm on heritage assets, the benefits included fulfilment of site allocation re BC40, retention of existing building structure and strong whole life carbon performance, improved architecture resulting in smaller building footprint at corner of Chiswell Street and Whitecross Street, removal of all on-site car parking and larger than policy compliant provision of cycle parking and funding the delivery of a number of programmes in the surrounding area across a three- year period.

·Objections included lack of consultation with residents of adjoining properties despite living 20m to the site, concerns as a result of the proposed roof terrace have not been sufficiently addressed, that having planters by the edge of the terrace will prevent overlooking. There was also concern about light pollution and a request for automated blinds which operates at certain times of the evening due to office lights being left on. Another objector requested a condition to be secured to limit noise from the use of roof terraces or from the plant on the roof or extractors recommending it to be a minimum of 10 decibels or lower ambient noise.

.In response agent advised that the building which will be vacant in the next few month is located at the southern part of the borough at the heart of Central Activity Zone (CAZ), that the proposal represents an opportunity to activate the area which in its current form fails local residents and local economy. Members were reminded that the proposal retains over three quarters of its existing structure, thereby achieving a strong whole life carbon performance and that the proposal would revitalise the floor space for flexible users.

·The agent acknowledged no overlooking concerns noting that it will work in line with the suggestions of the objector on the issue of landscaping on the roof terrace, that technology exists to address light spillage concerns. On the use of the roof terrace, meeting was advised that it is not accessible to the public however there will be an Operational Management Plan to address the hours of use.

·In response to the question on the lack of affordable work space on site , meeting was advised that the provision in the basement was not ideal for future letting according to the Council Inclusive and Economy Team and had issues with lack of lighting.

·On the applicants offer to the delivery of a number of programmes in the surrounding area across a three year period in absence of the affordable workspace on site, the agent acknowledged that besides what has been stated earlier, there were be apprenticeship opportunities provided and painting of on-site hoardings.

·In summary, the Chair reiterated the intention to renew the building and not replace it as good practice in the industry, that the proposed architectural treatment of the building is good, however the two extra floors to the building has raised concerns not only during the pre-advice meeting with council officers but subsequently by the GLA who have stated that it is not compliant with GLA Policy. Members were reminded of Design Review Panel’s specific comments about height and massing who concluded that it is a challenge to Islington Policy, that the building is a large intrusion, noting their solution is to remove the two floors.

·Members were of the view that as the scheme is a departure from the development policy, the additional benefits described in the S106 could only be described as hypothetical and vague, that similar schemes which committee had considered and granted panning permission applicants had offered benefits which were tangible such as provision of affordable workspace with tenure in perpetuity or long leases and in this case this was not offered.

·Members were of the view that assessing the planning balance was not possible with this scheme and should be deferred so that applicant could address the 3 main issues, the height and massing of the proposal, the S106 needed to be clarified as the details are not specific and clear and applicants to consider if the affordable workspace could be provided on site.

Councillor Hamdache proposed a motion to defer the application. This was seconded by Councillor North and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.