planning report GLA/5307/01 11 November 2019 Electra House, Moorgate in the City of London planning application no. 19/00805/FULL

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

The proposal Change of use of part basement, part ground floor and first to seventh floors from educational (Class D1) to office (Class B1) use.

The applicant The applicant is City of London Corporation.

Strategic issues Principle of development: Notwithstanding the fact that the university has already vacated the building, it is not possible to establish whether through the relocation, there has been loss of educational facilities to London. Furthermore, before alternative uses can be considered at the site, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for education facilities (or alternative social infrastructure uses) for this property. As such, the loss of D1 use would be resisted. Should the applicant provide sufficient justification for the loss of education use, a proportion of affordable workspace should be secured and an appropriate contribution secured towards affordable housing in accordance with mixed use policies. (paragraphs 12-23)

Transport: Cycle parking should be provided in line with draft London Plan policy and LCDS guidance. A Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan should be provided for new workspace proposed and secured via condition and s106 agreement as appropriate. (paragraph 30-33).

Outstanding issues relating to inclusive design (paragraph 24), energy (paragraph 28-29) would also need to be addressed.

Recommendation That the City of London Corporation be advised that the application does not yet comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 37 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

page 1

Context

1 On 30 September 2019, the Mayor of London received documents from the City of London Corporation notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor has to provide the City of London with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London plan and the reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 3E of the Schedule to the 2008 Order: • 3E – ‘Development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within any of the following classes in the Use Classes Order — Class B1 (business).’

3 Once the City of London has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; or allow the City of London to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is located on Moorgate and bounded by Finsbury Circus to the north, Salisbury House to the east and London Wall to the south. The site comprises a seven storey building which, until recently, was occupied by the London Metropolitan University along with Tower Chambers, directly adjacent to the site. There are also retail units at ground floor level which do not form part of the application. The building is Grade II listed and is situated within the Finsbury Circus Conservation Area.

6 The site is well served by public transport. Moorgate station, served by London Underground and National Rail services and Liverpool Street, served by London Underground, TfL Rail, London Overground and National Rail services, are within reasonable walking distance of the site. On a scale of 1-6b where 6b is the highest, the site has a public transport access level (PTAL) of 6b, which is excellent.

Details of the proposal

7 The proposals involve the change of use of the upper floors, lower ground floor and part of the ground floor of Electra House from educational use (Class D1) to office use (Class B1) amounting to 8,083 sq.m. of floorspace in total. No physical changes are proposed to the building in conjunction with the change of use. Case history

8 No pre-application meetings were held with GLA officers prior to an application being submitted on this site.

page 2

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

9 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the City of London Local Plan (2015) and the 2016 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations).

10 The following are also relevant material considerations:

• The National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

• The draft London Plan - Consolidated Changes (July 2019) which should be taken into account on the basis explained in the NPPF.

• The draft City Plan (November 2018).

11 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Education London Plan; Social Infrastructure SPG; • Offices London Plan; • Urban design & heritage London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; • Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; • Environment London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Environment Strategy; • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Crossrail SPG.

Principle of development

Loss of education use

12 The proposals involve the loss of 8,083 sq.m. of educational (Class D1) floorspace.

13 Under Policy 3.18 of the London Plan and Policy S3 of the draft London Plan, proposals involving the loss of educational facilities would be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

14 Policy 3.16 of the London Plan seeks to protect social infrastructure from loss in areas of identified need without realistic proposals for re-provision. Furthermore, the suitability of redundant social infrastructure premises for other forms of social infrastructure for which there is an identified need should be assessed before alternative developments are considered. Policy S1 of the draft London Plan is similar, however, it adds that the loss of social infrastructure may be appropriate if the loss is part of a wider public service transformation plan which requires investment in modern, fit for purpose infrastructure and facilities to meet future population needs or to sustain and improve services. The same principle applies to the loss of redundant social infrastructure premises.

page 3

15 The submission includes a letter from the London Metropolitan University (LMU) which confirms that the university vacated the building and the adjoining Tower Chambers building in September 2019. The letter also states that £8.5 million was spent on refurbishment works to the building by the university in 2011. Notwithstanding this, it is understood that the building is no longer fit for purpose and the school of business has been relocated to its Holloway Road campus in the London Borough of Islington.

16 It is understood that the Holloway Road campus has been the subject of a the LMU redevelopment programme known as ‘One campus, one community’ which involves the consolidation of all LMU schools onto the Holloway Road campus. However, no further information is provided as to where exactly the School of Business has been relocated to and to what extent it has been reprovided i.e. whether it would cater for the same number of students, whether the replacement facility benefit from the same or improved quality of accommodation and how the replacement school of business compares in floorspace terms.

17 Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the university has already vacated the building, it is not possible to establish whether through the relocation, there has been loss of educational facilities to London. In the absence of this information, the proposals would be contrary to London Plan Policy 3.18 and Policy S3 of the draft London Plan.

18 Before alternative uses can be considered at the site, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for education facilities in this part of the City, and whether there are any existing or proposed education facilities within the area that require relocating. The submission includes a letter from Knight Frank which indicates that there is significant demand for D1 use in the City due to a lack of supply. Notwithstanding this, no marketing exercise has been undertaken. Whilst it is acknowledged that the internal layouts may not necessarily be attractive to a particularly wide range of occupiers, this could be remedied, and would not necessarily deter an alternative educational user from taking the building. The use of the building for other forms of social infrastructure should also be considered before a commercial use would be considered acceptable in accordance with London Plan Policy 3.16 and draft London Plan Policy S1.

19 The principle of the loss of education/D1 use cannot currently be supported until the above evidence is provided in accordance with the London Plan and draft London Plan.

Offices

20 The proposals would result in the creation of 8,083 sq.m. of offices. The site is within the CAZ, which is one of the main areas where new office development should be prioritised in accordance with London Plan Policy 2.10, and draft London Plan policies SD4, SD5, E1. Policy 4.2 of the London Plan requires development involving the delivery of new office stock where there is an identified demand. In this regard, in order to maintain their position as a world leading, international financial and professional services centre, the City of London seeks to increase their office stock by 1,150,000 sq.m. between 2011- 2026 (an average 383,000 sq.m. every five years) under Policy CS1 of the current Local Plan to ensure that sufficient office space is available to meet demand. This target is proposed to increase to 2,000,000 sq.m. between 2016-2036 (an average of 500,000 sq.m. every five years) under Policy S4 of the draft City Plan.

21 Wework, a company that provides shared workspaces for technology startups and services for other enterprises, has agreed terms for a new lease at the property and intends to operate 25% of the building as a Financial Technology (FinTech) hub. As such, the proposals would accord with Policy 4.2 and draft London Plan Policy E2 which require new development to provide scope to provide a proportion of flexible workspace or smaller units suitable for micro, small and medium sized enterprises.

page 4

22 Draft London Plan Policy E1 seeks to ensure that development proposals for offices take into account the need for a range of suitable accommodation including low cost and affordable workspace. The applicant should liaise with City of London Corporation officers to establish what form of affordable workspace provision is most appropriate in this instance these provisions should be robustly secured within any associated s106 agreement.

23 Within the CAZ, developments involving the creation of new office space are required to provide a mix of uses including housing under Policy 4.3 of the London Plan. However, in areas which are identified as strategically important office clusters, such as the City, the use of contributions or land use swaps in lieu of on-site residential would be appropriate. In this regard, the City of London requires a contribution towards the off-site provision of affordable housing charged on any schemes of over 500 sq.m. of office floorspace. This should be robustly secured within any associated s106 agreement. Inclusive design

24 No details have been provided with respect to accessibility as part of the submission, therefore it is not possible to make an assessment of the development against London Plan Policy 7.2, draft London Plan Policies D3 and D11 and the Accessible London SPG. An access statement should be prepared and submitted demonstrating how the development would meet these policy objectives. Heritage

25 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the statutory duties for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”, and in relation to conservation areas, ‘in the exercise of planning powers within a conservation area, the decision maker is required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’. Any harm identified should be given considerable importance and weight.

26 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of the proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation; significance can be harm or loss through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. A balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Policy HC1 of the draft London Plan, like London Plan Policy 7.8, states that development should conserve heritage assets and avoid harm.

27 The development involves the change of use of the building only. No physical alterations are proposed in connection with the change of use. The building has been occupied by the university since 1944 but the building was originally built as offices for the Eastern Telegraph Company in the early 1900s. Therefore, the change of use back to offices would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the building. Furthermore, the Finsbury Conservation Area Statement does not attach great importance to the use of the building as a business school. As such, the proposals would not result in harm to the significance of the listed building or to the wider Finsbury Circus Conservation Area. Energy

28 The applicants are requested to provide an energy statement in accordance with the GLA’s Energy Assessment Guidance (2018). The scheme should demonstrate a 35%

page 5

improvement beyond part L of the 2013 Building Regulations. All developments are required to achieve a 15% improvement on 2013 Building Regulations from energy efficiency alone. Evidence should be provided on how the demand for cooling and the overheating risk will be minimised through passive design in line with the Cooling Hierarchy. The applicant should investigate opportunities for connection to nearby existing or planned district heating networks and evidence should be provided of communication with relevant parties. The site should also be served by a single energy centre and the applicant should commit to providing a site wide heating network. All major developments are required to maximise on-site renewable energy generation regardless of whether the 35% on-site target has already been met.

29 More detailed energy comments have been provided direct to the applicant and the City of London Corporation. Transport

30 No transport assessment including trip generation has been provided to support this application. However, given the previous higher education use, the net increase in trips is unlikely to cause unacceptable negative impacts on London’s strategic walking, cycling, public transport and highway networks.

31 Cycle parking should be provided in accordance with draft London Plan standards as set out in Policy T5. Cycle parking should also be designed and laid out in accordance with TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) guidance.

32 Given the proposed new office occupier will be a shared workspace provider, this represents an opportunity to improve the delivery and servicing and travel planning arrangements in operation at the site. The proposals should therefore be supported by a draft Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Travel Plan in accordance with draft London Plan policies T4 (Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) and T7 (Deliveries, servicing and construction). A full DSP and Travel Plan should be secured by condition and discharged in consultation with TfL prior to occupation of the new workspace proposed.

33 Although the applicant has not submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) they should confirm that no construction vehicles will access the site directly from Moorgate as it is part of the Strategic Road Network. Local planning authority’s position

34 City of London officers are currently intending to take the application to committee in xx. Legal considerations

35 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the City of London must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the City of London under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments.

page 6

Financial considerations

36 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

37 London Plan and draft London Plan policies on principle of development, heritage, inclusive design, energy, and transport are relevant to this application. The application does not yet fully comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan as set out below:

• Principle of development: Notwithstanding the fact that the university has already vacated the building, it is not possible to establish whether through the relocation, there has been loss of educational facilities to London. Furthermore, before alternative uses can be considered at the site, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there is no ongoing demand for education facilities (or alternative social infrastructure uses) for this property. As such, the loss of D1 use would be resisted. Should the applicant provide sufficient justification for the loss of education use, a proportion of affordable workspace should be secured and an appropriate contribution secured towards affordable housing in accordance with mixed use policies.

• Inclusive design: An access statement should be prepared and submitted demonstrating how the development would meet relevant London Plan and draft London Plan objectives.

• Heritage: The development involves the change of use of the building only. No physical alterations are proposed in connection with the change of use. The proposals would not result in harm to the significance of the listed building or to the wider Finsbury Circus Conservation Area.

• Energy: An energy assessment should be provided in accordance with the GLA’s energy assessment guidance.

• Transport: Cycle parking should be provided in line with draft London Plan policy and LCDS guidance. A Delivery and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan should be provided for new workspace proposed and secured via condition and s106 agreement as appropriate.

for further information contact GLA Planning Unit, Development & Projects Team: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7983 2632 email [email protected] Matt Christie Team Leader 020 7983 4409 email [email protected] Allison Flight, Deputy Head of Development Management 020 7084 2820 email [email protected] Hannah Thomas, Principal Strategic Planner (case officer) 020 7983 4281 email [email protected]

page 7