planning report PDU/2709/01 22 June 2011 UCL Howland Street Site, Windeyer Building,

in the planning application no. 2011/1944/P

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

The proposal Demolition of the existing academic research and teaching building, and the construction of a six- storey building (with two additional basement levels and plant at roof level) to accommodate a new scientific academic research and teaching building, and a new public park.

The applicant The applicant team comprises The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and University College London. The architect is Ian Ritchie Architects.

Strategic issues The development would strengthen London’s educational and research offering within an identified education cluster, and also benefit its world city status, whilst providing local employment benefits. The design of the development is striking although alterations may be required to mitigate against the scheme’s impact on local conservation areas and an adjacent listed building. Additional strategic view information is also required, as the site is within a protected vista corridor.

The development is acceptable in terms of access, transport and parking, and sustainable development, although additional information is required on the latter two issues to ensure that the proposal complies with the London Plan.

Recommendation

That Camden Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 55 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 57 of this report could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On the 16 May 2011 Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council 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 until 24 June 2011 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his 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 1C of the of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of … more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

3 Once Camden Council 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; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council 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 within the London Borough of Camden, but is immediately adjacent to the City of , the boundary to which runs on Cleveland Street, to the west of the site.

6 The site has three street frontages: Cleveland Street to the west, Howland Street to the north, and Fitzroy Street to the east. Although the site is not within a conservation area, it abuts the Charlotte Street conservation area to the south. Adjacent buildings are Astor College, and the disused Middlesex Hospital Annex, for which development proposals are presently being considered by Camden Council and the Mayor of London, and the BT Tower opposite (to the north-west).

7 The nearest Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is the A501 Euston Road, 200m to the north of the site. The nearest Strategic Road Network (SRN) is the A400 Hampstead Road, which is 300 metres to the north east of the site. The site is within walking distance of five London Underground stations, providing access to seven London Underground lines. Goodge Street station (Northern Line) is the closest station to the site, and is 400 metres and five minutes walk to the south east. The site is approximately 700 metres south west of Euston Mainline station, providing national rail services. Bus Routes 134, 14, 24 and 29 are available from the only bus stop within 400 metres of the site, located on . The site is within the area covered by the London Cycle Hire Scheme, and five docking stations are located within 200 metres of the site. The nearest is located directly opposite the site, on Howland street. The public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 6b (where 1 is low and 6 is high).

8 The sits is affected by two strategic designations: it is within the Central Area Zone (CAZ) although there are no CAZ frontages on the site; and within the protected Parliament Hill to Palace of Westminster vista (part of the Parliament Hill London Panorama) within the London View Management Framework.

9 The site is abutted by two conservation areas. The Charlotte Street conservation area abuts the site’s southern boundary, and continues southwards. The East Marylebone conservation area covers the land on the western side of Cleveland Street, directly opposite the site and within the

page 2 City of Westminster. Limited views northwards along Cleveland Street are also visible from within the Charlotte Street West conservation area, in Westminster, and southwards from the conservation area, in Camden. The site directly to the south of the application site, the former Middlesex Hospital Annex, was designated a grade-II listed building in March 2011; the site is the subject of a proposal for demolition of all existing buildings and construction of a residential- led development, for which the Mayor offered his comments in August 2010 (planning report PDU/2533a/01).

Details of the proposal

10 The development proposes the demolition of the existing building on the site and its replacement with a building of similar height and scale. The proposal is at an early stage of design development and detailed matters are yet to be finalised.

11 The use would comprise a neuroscience educational and research facility, allied with University College London, and backed by charitable sponsors/collaborators.

12 A small ‘pocket park’ is also proposed for the western corner of the site, at the intersection of Howland Street and Cleveland Street. Servicing access would be retained in its current position, off Cleveland Street adjacent to the Middlesex Hospital Annex. The open space to the rear of the existing building would also be retained, for use of residents and users of Astor College.

13 The existing building to be demolished has a gross external area (GEA) of 13,952 sq.m., while the new building would have a GEA of 14,394 sq.m., an uplift of approximately 440 sq.m. Case history

14 A pre-application meeting was held at City Hall in November 2010. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 World city role London Plan  Education London Plan; Ministerial statement July 2010  Employment London Plan; PPS4  Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Historic Environment London Plan; PPS5  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

16 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 2010 Camden Council Core Strategy and

page 3 Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents (DPD) and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

17 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, which underwent Examination in Public in 2010 and upon which the Panel has now reported is a relevant material consideration of significant weight. World city role / education / employment

18 Policy 4.10 of the draft replacement London Plan encourages the development of research uses that could contribute to London’s international standing, and assist in retaining and expanding its relevance on the world stage. The centre is intended to be a world-class research facility, expected to attract neuroscience researchers as well as serving as part of the overall UCL science offer. The facility would enhance central London’s research and education image, and is therefore supported. However, with this support, the building needs to offer an attractive and memorable design, but also incorporate the highest standards of sustainability.

19 The development would strengthen the /Fitzrovia educational and research cluster, and its location on this site is supported.

20 It is important to ensure that local residents and businesses benefit would from jobs created by this proposal, as set out in London Plan policy 3B.11. Initiatives to create training opportunities for local people and to address other barriers to employment will be formalised through the section 106 agreement, which is welcomed.

21 Much of the ground floor frontage would be offered for retail uses. This is encouraged within the Central Area Zone (CAZ), and although this is not a designated retail frontage, the London Plan seeks uses that will provide interaction and activity to provide interactivity between buildings and the public realm. In this regard, the proposal for a exhibition/lecture space is welcomed.

22 Camden Council’s policies expect 50% of new floorspace (based on the floorspace uplift) to be residential development. Given the educational use of the building and the potential sensitivity of the internal activities, the Mayor does not consider it appropriate to locate residential uses within the same footprint. Tall buildings / views

23 London Plan policies 4B.8 and 4B.9, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor.

24 The site is located within the Parliament Hill (main summit) to the Palace of Westminster strategic viewing corridor (protected vista), and is therefore assessed according to the guidance as set out within the Mayor’s revised London View Management Framework (LVMF) supplementary planning guidance. The new development is several metres higher than the building that presently exists on the site, and is several metres higher than the podium element of the BT building immediately north of the site. The tallest part of the main building is approximately seven metres below the viewing plane threshold, with chimneys protruding approximately three metres above

page 4 the roof height, but approximately four metres below the threshold height. The existing middle- ground in the existing view from Parliament Hill contains a busy cluster of buildings and the towering but slender form of the BT Tower directly in front of the proposed site. The building elevations would be non-reflective, avoiding glare. The applicant has not submitted a verified view showing the impact of the new building. Although it is likely that the building would not have a detrimental impact or obstruct the view within the strategic Parliament Hill to Palace of Westminster vista, a view demonstrating this should be produced.

25 Several visualisations have been submitted, which demonstrate the impact of the building in a local context. The design and appearance of the building, as considered within the next section of this report, would create a striking and contrasting feature within the existing urban context, which would attract the observer’s attention at street level. This is not a strategic issue of concern, although the next section suggests some opportunities for a better integration within the existing fabric. Urban design / historic environment

26 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon Network. The draft replacement London Plan reinforces these principles, with new development required to have regard to its context, and reinforce or enhance the character, legibility and permeability of the neighbourhood (policy 7.1).

27 The building design concept has been driven by its intended function, with a layout specific to its proposed operations. The design addresses specific requirements, such as flexibility of space within labs (in terms of height as well as floor area) and separate areas for testing and writing-up of results. This has been achieved by adopting a modular approach, with the collective dimensions of the arranged modules, along with other building areas such as the entrance and recreation areas, resulting in a building scale not too dissimilar to that which currently exists.

28 The existing development on the site and within the Howland Street area adopts a fairly standard height and form, but echoes patterns of earlier Georgian development within the surrounding area, which of course has its own standard approach. The proximity of the conservation areas, and the listed building to the immediate south of the site, are additional constraints.

Scale, massing and appearance

29 Although support for the general principles of design was expressed by officers at the pre- application stage, the facade design was at an early stage of development and comment was not sought on this element. Additionally, the Middlesex Hospital Annex Grade-II listing occurred following the issuance of comments; previously, the site was earmarked for a predominantly residential development of a scale significantly greater than the now listed building. As a result, the new building on the site will be more visible from the south.

30 The character of the inner city is partially defined by exciting juxtapositions between the large and the small, and the old and the new. The site itself is a transition between the fine grain of development to the south and the large block developments to the north. The design adopts a modern appearance which differs from the surrounding development. Glass is the predominant

page 5 material, with a degree of translucence that would allow light to glow through the exterior of the building, and allow light in from the outside during the daytime. The glass would have a white colouring, with a matt surface. As such, the building would have a striking appearance, especially at night.

31 The Howland Street elevation would adopt a waveform incorporating a semi-regular window pattern, echoing Georgian proportions in places. The internal laboratories would incorporate spaces that require flexibility – they could require darkness or privacy depending on the project – and as such, window opportunities are limited. Stairwells and service ducts are located at the ends of the building, and the same glass treatment also clads these elements, although without the waveform. The absence of openings and the massing of these elements makes them appear bulky, although not necessarily at odds with the character of the conservation areas and listed building. It is recommended that a sample of the cladding material be submitted to the Mayor so that he can be satisfied that the treatment would be appropriate. It may be appropriate to review the external treatment of the side elements, to add additional elevational interest, such as the addition of windows on the eastern stairwell. The proposed art feature on the western elevation would be a welcome addition.

32 The detrimental impact on the listed building to the south is minimal. When viewed from south of the listed building, northwards along Cleveland Street, the new building would protrude above and forward of the profile of the listed building and wall. The existing building does this, but although the new building would have a greater scale, it does not draw the viewer’s eye away from the foreground listed building. The main south facade, which would be predominantly visible only from within the urban block, would provide an appropriately shaded elevation.

page 6 Frontage, layout and pocket park

33 Howland Street is not a shopping street and the function of the building would preclude separate units from opening onto the street. Therefore the proposed ground floor space, which would provide a gallery window to the street is supported. The proportions of the ground floor colonnade are generous with clear lines of vision from end to end and openness to the street, and would incorporate ceiling art.

34 The proposed pocket park is welcomed given that there is a Council-identified deficiency of public recreational spaces in the area. It would provide an interesting counterpoint to the smaller space on the opposite corner of the Howland/Cleveland intersection. While it is disappointing that there is no surveillance of the space from the new building, the new space is small and is designed to cater for local workers and residents taking a short break, rather than provide opportunities for active recreation. The location of the green space at the end of the long view along New Cavendish Street is appropriate. The new art feature on the application building’s flank wall, which is related to the activity within, is welcomed and would be secured through the section 106 agreement.

35 To the rear of the building, a courtyard space and cycle storage would be provided for use by users of the adjacent Astor College, which extends the existing arrangement and is supported. Access

36 UCL offers strong equal opportunities and disabilities policies, with the development designed accordingly. The building would offer lift access directly from the entrance area to all floors, with a separate accessible entrance. As a car-free development, there is no specific blue- badge parking allocation, although the transport assessment demonstrated that spaces are available within the surrounding streets, with the closest being 66m from the main entrance. Local environmental improvements to step-free access, including routes to and from public transport, will be included within the section 106 agreement.

37 The pocket park would have a slight level change but step-free access would be provided to all areas. External seating would be incorporated. The rear courtyard would be accessed from the adjacent Astor College courtyard via an external lift and stairs, although controlled step-free

page 7 access from the street would also be provided. The measures to ensure that accessibility principles would be incorporated within the development are supported. Transport and parking

Comments from Transport for London

38 To promote inclusive accessibility to all users of the proposed development and encourage bus use, Transport for London (TfL) requests that the nearby bus stops on Tottenham Court Road (stops 660 and 8348) are upgraded, and accordingly, a contribution of £20,000 is required. An outline of the identified works required has been forwarded to the applicant. This should be secured within the s106 agreement. This will ensure consistency with London Plan Policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.7 Buses, bus transits, trams.

39 Legible London is a wayfinding initiative to encourage walking, and a contribution towards providing Legible London signage in the vicinity of the site is requested by TfL. The specific infrastructure and cost is yet to be agreed between the parties, and must be secured through the s106 agreement.

40 The provision of 60 staff and 60 visitor cycle spaces is welcomed, as are proposals to ensure that spaces would be secured, covered and well lit, and that cyclists would have access to showering and changing facilities. The proposals are therefore in conformity with London Plan policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

41 The arrangements for vehicular access into the site will be altered from the existing. The ability for service vehicles to enter or leave the site via Howland Street will be removed. In future, both access and egress will take place from a single crossover on the western side of the site, off Cleveland Street. The car-free nature of the development is supported, although it should be confirmed that this will be secured by use of planning condition or obligation. No disabled parking will be provided on site, but TfL is satisfied that there is sufficient, available on-street capacity. The proposals are therefore in conformity with draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 Parking and London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking strategy.

42 The submission of an interim travel plan is welcomed. However the document lacks specific detail regarding the targets, how it will be secured, and funding arrangements. Consequently the travel plan has not passed the ATTrBuTe assessment. A full travel plan should be formally secured through the s106 agreement. The travel plan assessment, which identifies required improvements, has been forwarded to the applicant. A travel plan, secured within the s106 agreement will ensure conformity with London Plan Policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

43 TfL welcomes the submission of a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and construction logistics plan (CLP), and requests that these documents are formally secured via appropriate planning conditions/ obligations.

44 In summary, dependent on contributions towards bus stop upgrades, Legible London, car free conditions, a revised travel plan inclusive of recommendations, CLP and DSP being secured by planning obligation or condition, there are no in-principle objections to the proposals. The application is broadly consistent with transport policies in the London Plan, subject to the required improvements.

page 8 Sustainable development

45 The incorporation of sustainability principles into the design of the scheme is supported, as is the design of the buildings to take advantage of solar orientation. The building requires a high level of roof-mounted plant, and although provision of biodiverse roofs is not possible, opportunities for landscaping, such as the external roof terrace, the rear courtyard and the pocket park, will partially mitigate the building’s environmental impact while providing some opportunities for local ecological enhancement.

Energy

46 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified.

Be lean - energy efficiency standards

47 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and intelligent lighting. The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 0.86% in regulated carbon dioxide emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant scheme.

Be clean - district heating, combined heat and power, and cooling

48 The applicant has investigated and discounted connection to large nearby networks for a range of reasons; for example, the distance to the Gower Street heat network. However it has suggested that it may be possible to reconfigure the scheme’s plant to allow connection to a wider network, should a network become available. The applicant should provide a firmer commitment which guarantees that the development will be designed to be able to connect to a network in future, should one become available. Notwithstanding, the applicant has confirmed that the site will be connected to an adjacent student halls of residence. This is supported, but the applicant should confirm the location and size of the energy centre.

49 The applicant proposes to install a 640kW gas combined heat and power (CHP) unit, which has been sized not only to provide the base heat demand of the development, but to export heat to Astor College (the adjacent student halls of residence). This is welcomed. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 31% will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

50 The applicant states that high performance glazing will be used to minimise solar gains. In areas where passive measures are not sufficient air cooled chillers will be provided.

Be green – renewable energy technologies

51 The applicant has discounted the use of renewables. The applicant indicates that there is room for up to 300 sq.m. of photovoltaic panels, which would contribute 0.33% carbon dioxide savings; however, this is not proposed. Applying the first two elements of the energy hierarchy, the development achieves carbon reductions which exceed the targets in the replacement London Plan. As such, it is accepted that no renewables are included in this development.

page 9 52 In summary, a reduction of 31% in regulated carbon emission compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development will be achieved after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures and CHP has been taken into account. Legal considerations

53 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 Council 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 Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining 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. Financial considerations

54 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

55 London Plan policies on London’s world city role, education, employment, tall buildings and views, urban design and the historic environment, access, transport and parking, and sustainable development are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

 World city role / education / employment: The development would strengthen the Bloomsbury education cluster and provide a world-class research facility, further enhancing London’s world city reputation. Local employment initiatives would be secured.  Tall buildings / views: Although unlikely to detrimentally affect the Parliament Hill to Palace of Westminster strategic view, further assessment of the development is required to confirm its impact.  Urban design / historic environment: The layout of the proposal is appropriate. Its impact on the listed building is minimal, but it would create a clearly visible addition within the context of the conservation areas, and adopt a modern, bulky appearance. Although the quality of the external materials is high and mitigates much of its impact, the side elements of the building may require review. The provision of the new public park space is supported.  Access: The development would cater appropriately to all users.  Transport / parking: The car free scheme is generally compliant but additional mitigation measures for the upgrading of local transport infrastructure are sought.  Sustainable development: The proposal complies with the London Plan, but additional clarification is needed on some points of the energy strategy.

56 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

page 10 57 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Tall buildings / views: Further assessment of impact of the building on the protected vista.  Urban design / historic environment: Submission of a cladding sample for consideration. Elevational refinements or additional justification for the treatment of the stairwell elements at either end of the building.  Transport and parking: Contributions to upgrade identified bus stops and Legible London signage. Additional travel plan data on targets, securing the plan, and funding.  Sustainable development: The applicant should provide a firmer commitment which guarantees that the development will be designed to be able to connect to an energy network in future, should one become available. The location and size of the energy centre should also be confirmed.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Glen Rollings, Case Officer 020 7983 4315 email [email protected]

page 11