planning report D&P/3788/02 6 June 2016 Ilona Rose House, 111-119 Road in the City of Westminster planning application no. 15/11234/FULL

Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

The proposal Substantial demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a mixed use scheme of basement, ground and part eight upper storeys plus rooftop plant with frontages to Charing Cross Road and Manette Street; refurbishment of buildings on , in connection with use of the buildings for offices, retail restaurants, art gallery/art education use, nightclub and eight residential dwellings; new public realm and pedestrian route through the site from Manette Street to Greek Street. The applicant The applicant is Estates, and the agent is Gerald Eve LLP.

Strategic issues summary Affordable housing: 8 residential units are to be provided on site as intermediate rent. A payment in lieu of £2.3m to Westminster City Councils affordable housing fund has also been secured. Heritage: The public benefit of the scheme is considered to outweigh the harm to the Soho conservation area. Transport: The applicant has confirmed that a cycle hire contribution of £100,000 will be secured. A Crossrail contribution of £2,179,800 will also be secured via the s106 agreement.

The Council’s decision In this instance Westminster City Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Westminster City Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action the Secretary of State may take and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

page 1

Context

1 On 21 December 2015 the former Mayor of London received documents from Westminster City Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:  1B “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings (b) in and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.”  1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of (c) more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 28 January 2016 the previous Mayor considered planning report D&P/3788/01, and subsequently advised Westminster City Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 110 of the above-mentioned report.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 17 May 2016, Westminster City Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission subject to the views of the Mayor of London and a s106 legal agreement, and on 24 May 2016 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Westminster City Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to the Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 6 June 2016 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update

5 At the consultation stage Westminster City Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 110 of the above-mentioned report:  Principle of development: The principle of office-led, mixed-use development on this site is supported in strategic planning terms. The provision of a mix of uses including residential, retail, leisure and cultural facilities on this site is welcome.  Affordable housing: Further details are required regarding the proposed donor site for the affordable housing provision. Westminster City Council should undertake an independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal, the results of which should be shared with GLA officers prior to the application being referred back to the Mayor.  Historic environment: The restoration of 14 Greek Street is supported. Further consideration should be given to ‘Option 4- Facade Retention’ development strategy of the applicant’s Design and Access Statement. GLA officers are of the view that the proposal would cause significant harm to the Soho Conservation Area and the public benefit of the scheme does not outweigh this harm. Given this, the proposal does not comply with London Plan policies or the NPPF.

page 2

 Urban design: The residential quality of the proposal is high, which is welcome. However GLA officers request further work and information with regards to the layout; height, massing and appearance; and strategic views. This should be supplied prior to the application being referred back to the Mayor.  Inclusive access: The applicant’s Access Statement demonstrates that the proposals generally reflect the principles of inclusive design, which is welcome. The Council should secure compliance with Building Regulations M4(2) and M4(3) via condition. In order to ensure compliance with London Plan Policy 3.8, the applicant should provide one wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable unit.  Sustainable development: Whilst the proposals are compliant with London Plan Policy 5.12 ‘Flood Risk’, they are not yet compliant with Policy 5.13 ‘Sustainable Drainage’. The proposal therefore requires more detailed consideration of sustainable drainage techniques. Further information and discussion are required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified. This should be submitted for assessment before the application is referred back to the Mayor. The applicant should ensure the short fall in carbon dioxide reductions is met off-site. Conditions securing commitment for climate change adaptation should be included when the application is referred back to the Mayor.  Transport: Further information and discussion is required regarding transport matters prior to the application being referred back to the Mayor. TfL requests a s106 contribution of £100,000 in order to accommodate the additional operational and maintenance demands of the local stations that are part of the Mayor’s Cycle Hire Scheme.

Principle of Development

6 The scheme would provide new office floorspace which could help anchor existing and expanding media related businesses within Soho. This would add to the vitality of the Central Activities Zone, build on the investment in Crossrail and maintain London’s international position and reputation as a leading provider of media services and skills. The development would therefore provide a significant contribution to the London economy in line with the policies of the London Plan.

Affordable housing

7 At the consultation stage, GLA officers were advised that the applicant would be providing an off-site affordable housing provision. The identified ‘donor’ site was located at Dean Street. The applicant was intending to deliver 31 affordable units at this site.

8 The applicant’s viability report has since been independently assessed on behalf of Westminster City Council. This independent assessment concluded that the proposed ‘donor’ site affordable housing provision was not viable in development terms. The independent assessment also considered a payment in-lieu option; and to provide the eight residential units as part of the Ilona Rose House scheme as affordable units. The Council has since advised that its preference would be for the residential units at Ilona Rose House to be provided as affordable accommodation. Further viability work undertaken has indicated that the scheme could also support a payment in lieu of £2.3m towards the Westminster City Council’s affordable housing fund.

9 London Plan Policy 3.11 includes the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing to be provided for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The applicant is intending to deliver all units on site as intermediate rent. Westminster City Council’s Committee Report states that the proposed tenure is appropriate for the proposed unit sizes as there is a demand for smaller

page 3 units in this tenure, and the layout and location is not considered particularly suited to family living. The intermediate provision would meet the definitions of affordability set out in the Mayors Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). In this instance, and given the Council’s support, the provision of all units as intermediate rent is considered to be acceptable.

10 The provision of affordable housing on-site is supported and in accordance with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12.

Historic environment

11 At stage 1, it was acknowledged that the proposed buildings of merit would cause harm to the Soho Conservation Area, in respect of the undesignated heritage assets, and the proposed development would impact upon the setting of the listed House of Barnabas from Soho Square. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation.’ In this case, the proposed development would impact the setting of the Soho Conservation Area and the surrounding listed buildings. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF, states that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’ The two unlisted buildings of merit fall into this category and would cause harm in respect to the undesignated heritage assets.

12 In line with paragraph 132 of the NPPF, the applicant was asked to reconsider the ‘Option 4 – Facade Retention’ design option in order to ensure appropriate consideration had been given to the assets conservation. The applicant has provided further information on this option and the reasons they believe this option would not be suitable. This information indicated that the retention of all three facades on Charing Cross Road would compromise the proposed development to a significant extent in terms of managing to maintain the historic and architectural integrity and proportions, fronting a much larger new development behind.

13 Following this, the applicant was asked to consider retaining the facade of 111 Charing Cross Road, making the necessary adjustments to integrate it with the new development behind. This design solution was considered and additional information submitted by the applicant. The additional information supplied indicates that substantial modifications would have to be made to the proposals, or to the existing elevation of 111 Charing Cross Road. Officers accept that this would result in a poor compromise.

14 Whilst the Council’s Committee Report states that the loss of buildings of merit along Charing Cross Road will constitute some harm to the Conservation Area (CA) it notes that the buildings are not pivotal to the character of the wider CA. In addition the report states that whilst the buildings of merit have townscape value, their significance on designation largely lay in their use as the flagship store for book. As Foyles have vacated the site, WCC officers concluded that the value of these buildings had been reduced. GLA officers were of the view at Stage 1, that substantial harm would occur to the CA as a result of the demolition of the buildings of merit. Officers remain of that opinion.

15 However since Stage 1 the overall public benefits of the scheme have been reassessed and these are considered to be significant. These include, the substantial economic benefits to the local and wider London economy, affordable housing, the provision of a new public courtyard and public realm improvements, a gallery and other publicly accessible uses at ground floor along with the

page 4 restoration of the listed building on Greek Street. Officers now consider that these benefits outweigh the substantial harm caused to the CA.

16 Officers are of the view that the public benefit of the scheme outweighs the harm caused to the Soho CA by the loss of undesignated buildings of merit. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.8.

Urban design

17 At stage 1 GLA officers raised concerns regarding the layout and the public benefit from the scheme. The applicant was asked to consider providing a public route along the southern boundary of the site. The applicant has provided justification for not providing a route along the southern boundary of the site, which include a lack of sunlight and a reduction in pedestrian activity along Manette Street. The additional information provided addresses GLA officers comments.

18 Following concerns over the size of the public realm area, the applicant has enlarged the space by a further 45 sq.m. The ‘pinch-point’ has been widened by a metre to reduce the tightness of this narrowing of the route.

19 At stage 1, concerns were raised regarding the massing of the proposal. The applicant was asked to consider design solutions to provide vertical elements to the facade to reduce the overall massing of the proposal. The applicant provided an alternative design concept that was considered prior to the application being submitted. GLA officers note that the current design has been developed in consultation with Westminster City Council design officers and that the approach is supported by the Council.

20 The Council’s Committee Report states that the increase in height is appropriate as the site represents the gateway into the large scale buildings of the Crossrail development and that the proposal is similar in scale to schemes approved as part of the Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area.

21 At the consultation stage, GLA officers noted that the western most portion of the site was located in the viewing corridor for London Panorama: Parliament Hill to the , and although the proposal was unlikely to have any significant impacts the applicant was asked to confirm that the proposal would be under the threshold height for this vista. The applicant has confirmed that the proposal would be significantly lower than the relevant threshold height and would therefore have no impact on the viewing corridor.

22 Overall and within the context of the schemes coming forward around the adjacent Crossrail station at Tottenham Court Road, the height, mass and bulk of the scheme is well considered and appropriate to its townscape setting.

Inclusive access

23 At the consultation stage an access statement was submitted which indicated that the proposals generally reflected the principles of inclusive design. However, the applicant was not intending to provide any wheelchair accessible units. The applicant has responded stating that all residential flats will be designed to be fully compliant with the relevant accessibility legislation, there will be level access to the building, level access on the ground floor and DDA compliant lift providing access to all floors.

24 The application is considered to be in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.2.

page 5

Sustainable development

25 At stage 1 the applicant was asked to confirm whether the rented apartments have been included in the overheating modelling. The applicant has stated that overheating within the residential block has been investigated within the SAP modelling. The applicant has provided the SAP compliance sheets to demonstrate that the risk of overheating has been addressed. The applicant has introduced in the design overhangs, efficient g-value and blinds to minimise any overheating issues. All units modelled show ‘slight’ or ‘not significant’ risk of overheating. This is considered acceptable.

26 The applicant has confirmed that all building uses will be connected to the site heat network. A schematic has been provided. The floor area of the energy centre has been confirmed and will be approximately 400 sq.m. The energy centre will be located on the lowest basement level.

27 At the consultation stage, additional information was requested on how the CHP had been sized and the monthly load profiles for space heating and hot water. The applicant has stated that the CHP sizing has been undertaken following the design thermal model results, rather than the Part L compliance calculations. According to the applicant, this is in order to provide a more realistic representation of the buildings’ operation. The applicant has explained that these two results are expected to differ and that the origin of this difference lies in a number of reasons such as the increased office occupancy hours, the increased hours of operation of the retail units and the inclusion of the Greek Street buildings which are not part of the Part L compliance modelling, as they are listed buildings. The above listed points add further to the heating and domestic hot water demand over the BRUKLs and therefore the CHP unit proposed is larger than what expected from the BRUKL outputs. This approach has been justified and is considered acceptable in this instance.

28 At stage 1 the applicant was asked to give consideration to reducing the volume of water run-off and sustainable drainage measures were required to be included as part of any stage 2 referral. The Council has secured the provision of a rainwater harvesting system via planning condition 21 of the draft decision notice. The proposal is in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.13.

Transport

29 At the stage 1 consultation, TfL requested that in order to comply with London Plan (2015) policies, a number of amendments be made to the proposals and in the event of a resolution to grant permission specific conditions and s106 contributions were secured.

30 Following these comments, the number of short stay cycle spaces has been increased to meet standards and the overall provision has been secured by condition. The requested revisions to the proposed new pedestrian route through the site have also been made and again secured by condition.

31 A delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and construction management arrangements (Code of Construction Practice) are also covered by conditions. However, there is no justification provided for the omission of a Travel Plan requirement.

32 A contribution of £100,000 towards the additional operational and maintenance demands on local Cycle Hire docking stations imposed by the development was requested at stage 1. The applicant has confirmed that the cycle hire contribution will be secured via the s106 agreement with the Council.

page 6

page 7

Response to consultation

33 The application was subject to statutory formal consultation; with the application publicised by sending notifications to addresses in the vicinity of the site, and issuing site and press notices. The relevant statutory bodies were also consulted. The representations received in response to the local consultation process are considered in detail within the Council’s committee report of 17 May 2016. Furthermore, copies of all representations to public consultation, and any other representations made on the case have been made available to the Mayor in their original form.

34 The Council received 20 letters of objection which raised issues with regard to:  Impact on sunlight and daylight to surrounding residential buildings on Charing Cross Road and Manette Street.  Facades of buildings along Charing Cross Road should be retained, as well as the current heights.  The proposed building is too large.  Impact of daylight to the surrounding streets.  Height and scale of the proposal is not appropriate.  Inappropriate regard to the character of the surrounding area.  Disturbance to surrounding residents during both the construction and occupation phase.  Demolition of the historic frontage will have a negative impact on Charing Cross Road and Manette Street.  No provision of affordable housing in the scheme.  Facades along Charing Cross Road should be retained and integrated into the new development.  The Charing Cross Road elevation is repetitive and too bulky. The retention of the separate facades is preferable.  Loss of local cafe on Greek Street.  Impact of a nightclub and late night A3 uses opening on site, including noise and safety.  The proposal is not in keeping with the character of Soho.  The building height should not exceed that of the existing Foyles building.  There are some good things about the design – textured and patterned tactile materials and the courtyard space. These could still coexist with retained facades on Charing Cross Road.  Although the design is fairly good, it is completely the wrong site for it.  If the facades along Charing Cross Road were retained, they could very easily be integrated into the development.  Development results in the demolition of several fine historic buildings that help establish the character of Soho.  The development should retain the current facades and be taller.

35 Historic England objected to the proposal on the grounds that the demolition of two prominent “buildings of merit” and the loss and alteration of other buildings would cumulatively result in substantial harm to the special character and appearance of the Soho Conservation Area, and would also harm the setting of a nearby Grade 1 listed building, and recommended that the Council refuse the application. Historic England also produced a press release on 26.5.16 in which their Chief Executive Duncan Wilson was quoted as saying “We are sorely disappointed by Westminster’s Council’s decision. The height, bulk and corporate character of the design for this building to replace the much-loved original Foyles store on Charing Cross Road is completely out of keeping with the historic grain of Soho….Soho is one of the most distinctive, well loved places London has, and the Foyles building is another important part of it now threatened with demolition. Buildings like the one proposed to replace Foyles do not belong in this important conservation area.”

page 8

36 In addition Historic England emailed the GLA on 3.6.16 asking for confirmation of officers recommendation in respect of Westminster City Councils referral of the scheme at Stage 2. Historic England also requested a copy of the draft report and that if the recommendation is not to refuse that they be given the opportunity to attend the Mayor’s meeting to answer questions the Mayor may have on the heritage aspects of the case.

37 The issues with regard to harm to heritage assets have been set out in this report and Westminster City Councils committee report. Whilst both Westminster City Council and GLA officers acknowledge substantial harm to the conservation area by reason of the loss of buildings of merit this harm is considered to be outweighed by the significant public benefits the scheme brings in terms of economic benefits, the provision of affordable housing, the restoration of heritage assets, and improvements to the public realm and permeability of the site, as set out in this report, the stage 1 report and the City Councils committee report. GLA officers do not consider that substantial harm would be caused to the setting of the adjacent Grade 1 listed building at St Barnabas House. The setting of the part of the building that fronts Manette Street would be enhanced as a result of the public realm works and the design quality of the new building on the south side of the street. Whilst the development would be visible above the roofline of St Barnabas House in views from Soho Square it is largely obscured by the mature London Plane trees that flank the square and would not dominate the setting of the Grade 1 listed building and any harm caused would be less than substantial and outweighed by the public benefits associated with the scheme.

38 Historic England has requested that they attend the Mayor’s meeting to answer questions on heritage issues. The Mayors planning team has its own heritage advisors within it who have inputted into this report and the Stage 1 report and will attend the Mayors meeting and will be able to address. Historic England will be advised that GLA officers recommendation is to allow Westminster City Council to determine the application itself and that the Mayor does not wish to direct refusal.

39 Historic England (Archaeology) raised no objection subject to the inclusion of the requested conditions.

40 Council for British Archaeology welcomed the restoration of 14 Greek Street, but raised concern over the bulk of the new building, the impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its impact on surrounding listed buildings.

41 The Victorian Society raised an objection to the proposal as it would result in substantial harm being caused to the Soho Conservation Area and harm the setting of a nearby listed building. The broad brush and heavy handed development is prominent in views into and through the CA.

42 Cross London Rail Links Ltd raised no objections subject to the inclusion of the requested conditions.

43 The Soho Society objects to the increase of A3 uses within the West End Stress area. If this use is permitted the Soho Society would like to see it hours of operation restricted to core hour’s and takeaway should not be permitted. The new pedestrian route should be closed off at night and the proposal should provide public toilets to cater for additional footfall. The basement office space should be provided at affordable rent. The Soho Society also requested that Manette Street remain accessible to vehicles.

44 The Community Association regrets the increase in height and density within the Soho Conservation Area and consequent impact on surrounding conservation areas. However, it is recognised that the site is within the opportunity area. The Covent Garden Community Association also supports the comments raised by the Soho Society.

page 9

45 The Theatres Trust raised no objection to the proposal, although they encouraged the applicant to consider temporary cultural uses within the vacant buildings until the redevelopment actually beings.

46 Thames Water raised no objections to the proposal subject to the comments made with regards to surface water drainage, piling method statement, trade effluent consent, installation of a properly maintained fat trip on all catering establishments, groundwater discharges into the public sewer being minimised, and the drainage strategy being adhered to, being taken into consideration.

47 The Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Office in principle had no objections to the redevelopment of the site although raised concerns with regards to external lighting and CCTV needing to be compliant, physical security of the development, and the external street furniture to the proposed retail space on Manette Street does not appear to promote the principles of Secure by Design. They expressed that redesign and reassessment of these areas should be undertaken. Prior to commencement, details of how the development will incorporate the principles and practices of Secure by Design should be submitted and approved to.

48 London Underground Limited raised no objections to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the requested conditions.

49 The Environment Agency did not make any comments regarding this application.

50 Matters relating to the design of the scheme, the heritage aspects, land use and affordable housing have been addressed in both this and the previous report (D&P/3788/01). Other objections raised have been appropriately addressed in Westminster Council’s committee report.

Representations direct to the Mayor of London

51 Further to the objection by the Victorian Society received by Westminster Council, a letter to the Mayor of London was received on 3 June 2016 from the Society. The requested that the Mayor call-in the application due to the substantial harm that would be caused to London’s historic environment, and the proposals failure to comply with both the London Plan and the NPPF.

52 The impact of the proposal with regards to the historic environment have been addressed both in this report and the previous report (D&P/3788/01). Westminster Council’s committee provides further commentary regarding the impact on the historic environment. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

53 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage 1, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.

page 10

Legal considerations

54 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

55 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

56 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

57 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

58 Further information has been provided regarding office uses, affordable housing, historic environment, urban design, inclusive access, sustainable development and transport. The additional information provided to GLA officers, together with conditions and planning obligations imposed by Westminster Council address outstanding issues that were raised at stage 1. On this basis there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case.

59 Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in Westminster Council’s Committee Report and draft decision notice, this scheme is on balance acceptable in strategic planning terms.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Jessica Lintern, Case Officer 020 7983 4653 email [email protected]

page 11