• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Centre Point Tower, Centre Point Link and Centre Point House 101-103 New Oxford Street and Address: 5-24 St Giles High Street London WC1A 1DD Application 2012/2895/P Officer: Amanda Peck Number: Holborn & Covent Ward: Garden Date Received: 31/05/2012 Proposal: Change of use of Centre Point Tower from office (Class B1) and restaurant/bar (Sui Generis) to residential (Class C3) to provide 82 self contained flats (16 x one bedroom, 37 x two bedroom, 26 x three bedroom, 2 x 4 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom duplex) and ancillary residential floorspace (spa, gym, pool and club); change of use of Centre Point Link from office (Class B1) and bar (Class A4) to a flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1/A3/A4) and the erection of a ground floor extension partially infilling under the bridge link; change of use of Centre Point House at first and second floor levels from office (Class B1) to flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1, A3, A4); alterations and extensions to the existing building at ground floor level to provide flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1, A3, A4). Alterations to the external elevations of Centre Point Tower, Centre Point Link and Centre Point House including the relocation internally of the existing external ground and mezzanine eastern and western staircases, replacement and refurbishment of the facades, fenestrations and shopfronts, new pedestrian link through Centre Point House and associated basement car parking, terraces, landscaping, public realm, highway works (including the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street and the relocation of bus stands to Earnshaw Street), servicing and access arrangements and extract ducts.

Drawing Numbers: ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: refuse planning permission Related Application? 31/05/2012 Date of Application: Application Number: 2012/2897/L Proposal: Internal and external alterations including the relocation internally of the existing external ground and mezzanine eastern and western staircases, the replacement and refurbishment of the facades, fenestration and shopfronts, all associated with the change of use of Centre Point Tower from office (Class B1) and restaurant/bar (Sui Generis) to residential use (Class C3) to provide 82 residential units and ancillary residential floorspace (spa, gym, pool and club) change of use of Centre Point Link from office (Class B1) and bar (Class A4) to a flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1/A3/A4) and the erection of a ground floor extension partially infilling under the bridge link; change of use of Centre Point House at first and second floor levels from office (Class B1) to flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1, A3, A4); alterations and extensions to the existing building at ground floor level to provide flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (Class A1, A3, A4). Alterations to the external elevations of Centre Point Tower, Centre Point Link and Centre Point House including the replacement and refurbishment of the facades, fenestrations and shopfronts, new pedestrian link through Centre Point House and associated basement car parking, terraces, landscaping, public realm, highway works(including the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street and the relocation of bus stands to Earnshaw Street), servicing and access arrangements and extract ducts.

Drawing numbers: ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: ?????????? Applicant: Agent: Almacantar (Centre Point) Ltd Gerald Eve LLP C/o Agent 72 Welbeck Street London W1G 0AY

ANALYSIS INFORMATION Land Use Details: Use Use Description Floorspace Total Class B1 Business 27,516 m² 38,589m² A3 Restaurants and Cafes m² Existing Sui Generis m² C3 Dwelling House 4,086m² (36 units) 0 m² 39,661m² B1 Business m² A1 Shop m² Proposed A3 Restaurants and Cafes m² A4 Drinking Establishments 31,994m² (118 C3 Dwelling House units) Residential Use Details: No. of Habitable Rooms per Unit Residential Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ Existing Flat/Maisonette Proposed Flat/Maisonette

Parking Details: Parking Spaces (General) Parking Spaces (Disabled) Existing Proposed OFFICERS’ REPORT

Reason for Referral to Committee: The application is being reported to the Committee as it is a Major development which involves the creation of more than 10 new dwellings [Clause 3(i)]

1. SITE

1.1The Centre Point tower is a major London landmark prominently situated at the junction of New Oxford Street, Charing Cross Road and Tottenham Court Road. The application site relates to the Centre Point Tower, Centre Point House and the link building which bridges across St Giles High Street linking the two buildings. All buildings on site are Grade II listed and are within the Denmark Street Conservation Area.

1.2The entire complex was designed by Richard Seifert & Partners in 1960-1966. The tower is 35 storeys with slightly convex sides. One of the most distinctive features of the building is its extensive use of concrete including being an early example of off site pre casting. Over the years a number of alterations have been undertaken to the building such as the infilling of the ground floor under the tower (which was originally the point where the basement car park was accessed) and the removal of the fountain on Charing Cross Road for the construction of the Crossrail station.

1.3The wider area around the site is characterised by many of London’s most popular visitor attractions, including the British Museum, Covent Garden and Oxford Street. Interspersed within the above are residential and other small and large-scale retail uses.

1.4The area around Tottenham Court Road Station and St Giles High Street will experience considerable change over the next ten years. Several projects and major redevelopment proposals in the area are at different stages of preparation. Chief amongst them are:  Enlargement of the Tottenham Court Road Underground Station ticket hall and implementation of the Crossrail scheme - Construction is underway and has involved the closure of Andrew Borde Street to create a site for the new main entrance to the station.  Redevelopment of the two Tottenham Court Road station over site developments in Westminster at 135-155 Charing Cross Road and 1-23 Oxford Street/157-165 Charing Cross Road – Planning permission granted by Westminster April 2012 subject to referral to Mayor of London and S106 legal agreement  Part redevelopment and part refurbishment of the Denmark Place Site to the south of Centre Point – pre application discussions are underway.

1.5 The entire site is within the LDF Tottenham Court Road Growth Area, with the Tower being within a designated Central London Frontage. The objectives of the Growth Area are to provide a balanced mix of uses, an excellent public realm, and development of the highest quality and to remedy the lack of open space. The site is also allocated in the submission document of the LDF site allocations (March 2012). Specifically the aspiration for the ‘St Giles Circus’ site is to support high quality development appropriate to this Central London gateway and the creation of new world class public spaces The entire site is also located within an area identified as being susceptible to ground water flooding with potential slope stability issues.

1.6 Following approval of the station entrance design at Tottenham Court Road a steering group was established to oversee the development of the urban realm design for St Giles Circus. This steering group consisted of representatives from LUL, Crossrail, London Borough of Camden, City of Westminster, TfL and Design for London. Gillespies developed the designs for the urban realm through to RIBA stage D and these were presented to stakeholders (CABE, Mayor’s Design Advisory Panel, local landowners, local business groups and the Tottenham Court Road Community Liaison Panel, cllrs? (Therese checking)), with a display in the Crossrail Visitor Information Centre on St Giles High Street. A ‘schedule 7’ Crossrail application (see relevant history below) has consequently been approved for the reinstatement of the worksite within the area immediately surrounding the station (to the west of Centre Point tower), which is in effect phase 1 of the implementation of the Gillespies study. The aspiration of the Gillespies study is to close St. Giles High Street and create a new public space in between Centre Point Tower and Centre Point House. The provision of this public space is identified in the LDF Draft Site Allocations document with the wider objectives being to provide the space through planning obligations and working with other agencies. These proposals are subject to traffic modelling work and public consultation to determine what the impacts of the road closure would be. The proposals are also dependent on wider proposals in the area including the Tottenham Court Road two way working scheme. The current timetable for this work is as follows:  Traffic modelling to be completed and assessed by TfL by March 2013  Public consultation in June 2013  Decision by stakeholders on full implementation of Gillespies study, summer 2013.

2. THE PROPOSAL

Original

2.1The proposal is for the change of use of the tower from office (class B1) and restaurant/Bar (Sui Generis) to residential. The conversion would provide 82 new residential units (16 x 1 bed, 37 x 2 bed, 26 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed) in addition to the 36 existing residential units in Centre Point House. The provision of ancillary floorspace in the form of a spa, gym, pool and club on the ?? floor of the tower is also proposed. The change of use of the link building and the first and second floors of Centre Point from office (class B1) and bar (class A4) to flexible retail/restaurant/bar use (class A1/A3/A4) is also proposed.

2.2Externally the proposal includes façade and window replacement to all buildings and the relocation internally of the existing external ground and mezzanine eastern and western staircases at the tower. A glazed extension is proposed underneath the link building which would effectively be constructed on St Giles High Street and require the closure of this road. This would require the relocation of bus stands and bus routes via Earnshaw Street. A pedestrian link would be retained underneath the bridge link and a new pedestrian link is proposed underneath Centre Point House. A new public square is proposed between the Tower and Centre Point House.

2.3The buildings would be serviced from Earnshaw Street and the existing vehicular access ramp is proposed to be replaced with two car lifts and a servicing area. The existing basement car park will be used for the location of plant, cycle parking and some car parking (with a reduction of spaces from ??? to ???). New vertical extract ducts are proposed to the northern façade of Centre Point House.

Revision[s] 2.4 Amended enclosures adjacent to stairs to house vertical ducts *********, Further information has also been submitted with regard to the Financial Viability Assessment, the search for off site affordable housing locations, provision of affordable housing within the tower, An amended redline plan has been submitted as the original plan was not clear. Amended drawings have also been submitted showing ***amendments to lifts, cycle parking locations etc*********

3. RELEVANT HISTORY

Application site  2005/2045/P and 2006/5040/P - Change of use of floors 31, 32 and 33 from office to mixed restaurant and bar use (Sui Generis);  Change of use of ground floor bank to bar/ restaurant use (ref 2005/1553/P, PSX0204812, PS9704250/r2). Various listed building consents for internal alterations,) new lighting, rooftop plant;  2009/4440/L - Removal of existing staircase, erection of temporary external staircases, and erection of new staircase and associated alterations at mezzanine level landing.  Various advertisement consents for signage on the building;  Various planning applications for rooftop plant;

Crossrail / Tottenham Court Road station  Outline planning permission and heritage consents for works required for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Cross London Rail Link (CLRL - Crossrail) were deemed granted by the Crossrail Act 2008.  Permission for the proposed works is subject to conditions imposed by Section 10 and the planning regime set out in Schedule 7 of the Act. These require plans and specifications for the operations, and works and construction arrangements to be approved by the relevant local authorities. Various applications have been approved including the following:  2012/1518/P - Submission under Schedule 7 of Crossrail Act 2008 for worksite restoration scheme at Tottenham Court Road Station (East) (CAM/2/4/1).

4. CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Consultees 4.1 Transport for London Summary Additional work on the impact of the closure of St Giles High Street needs to be undertaken to assess the ‘final state’ proposal and the various stages of construction. Specifically the transport modelling has not been undertaken to confirm if and when St. Giles High Street can be closed. This modelling needs to include wider proposals such as the Tottenham Court road two-way working scheme and the potential for changes to be made to Denmark Street. The relocation of bus stands in the area has also not been modelled or assessed. The proposal also includes the closure of St Giles High Street as early as 2013 to create a works site and this should be modelled as well in relation to LUL/Crossrail construction phases (which have not yet been finalised).

The applicant has proposed an alternative approach to assessing the impact on the highway network as the wider transport models are not available at this time. TfL do not consider this approach is robust enough to assess the impact of the scheme. TfL are unable to advise when the wider models will be available until the end of the Olympic Games, but they are unlikely to be available until early 2013.

10 July (initial response)  Formal notifications and approval may be needed for both the permanent highway scheme and any temporary highway works required during the construction phase of the development in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004  The site is currently subject to, as is the rest of the highway network in the vicinity, a number of temporary changes and diversions associated with Crossrail and London Underground (LU) upgrade works at Tottenham Court Road station, immediately to the west of the site.  The A40 (New Oxford Street and St Giles High Street) and A400 (Charing Cross Road) form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), with the nearest part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) being the A3211 Victoria Embankment, approximately 1km to the south-east of the site. As well as being the traffic authority for the Strategic Road Network, TfL has an interest in this development due to its proximity to, and potential impact on, Tottenham Court Road station and bus standing facilities in the area. There are also a number of schemes that affect the highway network in the area and which are currently under consideration, including temporary road closures and diversions due to Crossrail construction, the St Giles Circus Urban Realm scheme (and associated submission under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail act), and its associated proposals to introduce two way working for buses on Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street. This application needs therefore to be considered in the context of these other schemes. Traffic Impact  The submitted Transport Assessment states that the closure of the northern end of St Giles High Street has been modelled, and the results presented to TfL’s Network Management Group (NMG). However, it needs to be clarified that this is not the case. Whilst it is intended to model the impact of the closure as part of the ongoing modelling work associated with the Tottenham Court Road two-way scheme, this is currently still not finalised and may not be agreed for some time. The modelling presented to the NMG to date has focussed primarily on improvements to the pedestrian crossing provision at the Charing Cross Road / Oxford Street junction assuming that St Giles High Street remains open to service vehicles and to buses. Likewise, although TfL has previously confirmed that the relocation of bus stands to Earnshaw Street from St Giles High Street could be feasible with or without two-way working in Tottenham Court Road, no such assessment has been carried out using traffic modelling as stated at paragraph 7.2 of the applicant’s transport assessment.  There is a need for the impact of the closure of St Giles High Street to be fully modelled. This assessment would need to use the existing models as a baseline and which the transport assessment accepts are not yet finalised (paragraph 7.3). This would also need to consider both the AM and PM peak periods, and assess the impacts of the closure both with and without two-way working scenario on Tottenham Court Road.  In order to carry out this assessment it will be necessary to understand any redistribution of traffic caused by the closure of St Giles High Street, which would inform the scope of any modelling required. At present, it appears to have been assumed that all traffic would instead use Earnshaw Street or Denmark Street, which seems overly simplistic by TfL. It also does not take into account the potential for Denmark Street to be closed to through traffic as part of the wider public realm improvements and which would need to be taken into account in the future scenarios.  The above scenarios are assessed against a baseline year of 2018, assuming completion of Crossrail and LU upgrade works at Tottenham Court Road along with the highway layout reverting to an agreed final state. However, the current timescale for the development involves works commencing in 2013, and the closure of part of St Giles High Street to create a works site. No assessment of the highways impact of this closure has been carried out as part of the application. If the intention is to close St Giles High Street so early in the construction of the proposed development, the impact of this must be modelled to assess its acceptability. This could utilise the existing modelling undertaken by LU as a base, starting with the model produced for Phase D3 of the construction works and also modelling the impacts through phases D4 and onwards. However, models for these phases have not yet been finalised and agreed which might have implications upon the developer’s proposed timescales.  Given the likely difficulties associated with this, TfL would suggest that the applicant should consider whether the site can be developed without the need for a full closure of St Giles High Street (north). This may be possible if a reduced road width for this section can be agreed. However, TfL would note that this is likely to require the early relocation of some bus standing and provision of alternative loading facilities for local businesses, which will need to be addressed.  Although bus issues are considered in further detail below, following recent discussions with the applicant pre-submission of the application, it is understood that the relocation of a bus stand to the northernmost end of Earnshaw Street is currently being considered as an alternative to offside bus stands on St Giles High Street. Given the potential proximity of the stand to the Earnshaw Street / New Oxford Street junction, the impact of this would also need to be modelled, building on the above scenarios. Buses  Given the reduction in the number of bus trips associated with the development as outlined below and the site’s proximity to a number of high frequency bus routes, it is accepted that the site will not result in an unacceptable impact on the local bus capacity.  As previously stated, the application does propose the relocation of a number of bus stands following the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street. TfL has a requirement for a minimum of 10 bus stands in close proximity to Tottenham Court Road station in order to operate services in the area. It was agreed in principle as part of the Gillespies work to provide these facilities on Earnshaw Street, Great Russell Street and further east on St Giles High Street. It should be noted that the transport assessment assigns these stands to specific routes, but TfL reserves the right to operate different routes from various stands depending on operational requirements.  Due to both the revised location of the service access into Centre Point House and the provision of an east-west pedestrian link through Centre Point House, it is not possible to provide the four stands on Earnshaw Street that were initially proposed as part of the Gillespies scheme. To compensate for this, it is now proposed to provide an additional two bus stands on the northern side of St Giles High Street (east). However, such offside bus stands are not favoured by TfL as it could not operate as ‘live’ stands (where passengers disembark) given that this would involve passengers exiting the bus into the carriageway. TfL would recommend that this option is not taken forward, and that investigation for additional bus standing further north on Earnshaw Street to maintain the proposed provision of 10 bus stands be rather considered. As outlined above, this would still require to be modelled to ensure that the traffic impact of such a stand would be acceptable to TfL.  The provision of bus standing on Great Russell Street has only been agreed by TfL in principle and an exact stand location is still required to be agreed with LB Camden. This will be dependent on the direction of travel for buses in Great Russell Street which is proposed to be reversed as part of the Tottenham Court Road two-way scheme. Public Realm Works  The application proposes a number of changes to the surrounding urban realm, building on the St Giles Circus urban real scheme prepared by Gillespies, part of which is included within the recent submission under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act by TfL relating to the restoration scheme for St Giles Circus. Whilst TfL agrees that the Gillespies scheme holds merit in delivering improvements to the urban realm and pedestrian and notwithstanding the comments made on traffic and bus impacts, there are detailed points that need to be addressed through the application, as further detailed below. o A number of security measures need to be included within any proposals for the public realm around Tottenham Court Station. A condition requiring approval of a security scheme by both LB Camden and TfL prior to the commencement of any work should be secured through any planning permission. It should also be noted that the location of the lay-by that appears to be proposed on New Oxford Street conflicts with some of the currently proposed security measures and this may need to be redesigned. o There are elements of the proposed urban realm scheme that are not consistent with the current designs contained within TfL’s Schedule 7 submission. These include the omission of two feature lighting columns, along Charing Cross Road and New Oxford Street, as well as differences in paving materials, tree locations and seating and lighting in the area to the east of Centrepoint Tower. It is encouraged that a common approach to public realm improvements between Westminster City and Camden Councils, the applicant and TfL can be agreed in the interests of expedience and to avoid unnecessary changes at a later date, while ensuring that a design can be delivered without impacting on the cost of programme of the Crossrail works. o A scheme for wind mitigation immediately to the south of Centrepoint Tower also needs to be developed and again should be secured by condition. o As the application proposes a large new area of public realm, and given the increase in short stay visitor trips associated with the improved retail offer in the area, it is considered that there is an excellent opportunity to allocate space within the new square for a cycle hire docking station. Car Parking  For the 118 residential units, the application proposes a total of 36 car parking spaces. This equates to a ratio of 0.3 spaces per unit. Whilst TfL would prefer a car free development in recognition of the site’s excellent PTAL, it is ultimately accepted that this level of car parking is in line with the standards set out in the London Plan policy 6.13. No car parking is proposed for the non-residential uses, which is supported. Residents would then be prevented from applying for parking permits in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), which is supported and should be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement for the site.  Access to the basement car parking would be via car lift from Earnshaw Street, with an off street area provided for vehicles to wait without obstructing the adjacent bus stands or pedestrian crossing, which is welcomed by TfL.  The Transport Assessment makes no reference to either blue badge parking or electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs). In line with London Plan policy, 20% of parking spaces should be provided with an EVCP with an additional 20% passive provision for future use, and this should be secured via condition. The applicant should also confirm the proposed level of blue badge parking, having regard to the standards contained in the London Plan. Trip Generation and Distribution  Sites within the TRAVL database have been used to determine the number of trips likely to be generated by both the existing use on site and the proposed development, with adjusted 2001 Census data then being used to allocate trips onto different modes, taking into account lower car use in connection with the retail uses for which there is no dedicated parking. This approach seems reasonable to TfL, and results in a reduction in the number of trips across most modes in both peak hours and across the day.  For the purposes of the assessment, a baseline date of 2018 has been used due to the difficulties in reflecting an accurate current baseline with the changing nature of the transport network around the site, caused primarily by works to Tottenham Court Road station as mentioned above. Although this seems an appropriate approach to TfL, it is understood that the applicant wishes to commence works in 2013 and the impact of this will need to be understood given the temporary highway layouts that will be in place at this time. Walking and Cycling  Cycle parking for the residential units is proposed at basement level, in accordance with LB Camden’s cycle parking standards but below the minimum London Plan standards, which require one space per unit for one or two bed units, and two spaces per unit for larger units. Residential cycle parking provision should be increased to a minimum of 147 spaces, in line with London Plan policy 6.13.  Cycle parking for the retail units is provided in accordance with London Plan standards, and would be a mix of basement parking for staff and surface level parking for visitors. Whilst this is welcomed the location of the surface level parking should be confirmed, as in some of the renders it appears to be proposed on the footway on New Oxford Street which could reduce the amount of footway space available for pedestrians. Travel Plan  A draft Framework Travel Plan and Residential Travel Plan have been provided as an appendix to the transport assessment and will need to be secured as part of the section 106 agreement for the site. The Travel Plans have been assessed using the ATTrBuTe tool and their content is generally good – however, it should be noted that the retail Travel Plan appears to contain some references to the Victoria Circle development, which it is assumed is in error. Construction and Servicing  Servicing is proposed using an off street service area accessed from Earnshaw Street, with service vehicles able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. This is an improvement over the current situation where larger vehicles often have to reverse to or from Earnshaw Street and is welcomed by TfL.  A draft Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) have been provided as an appendix to the Transport Assessment. These are welcomed by TfL and should be secured as part of any consent for the site. The draft DSP and CLP contain good information on the potential measures, targets and monitoring of the plans which will be taken forward once occupiers are known and the construction programme is further advanced. However, there are a number of issues relating to construction impact on the transport network which would need to be resolved before works could be commenced: o The red line boundary submitted as part of this application includes areas of land that TfL own and / or currently occupy or use for the purpose of diverting Charing Cross Road. Appropriate agreements will need to be put in place in respect of such land. o As explained in further detail in the ‘Highway Impact’ section above, the impact of the proposed road closures during construction would need to be modelled to ensure that they do not result in unacceptable increases in journey times for both general traffic and for buses. In addition, provision of bus stand provision and parking and loading facilities would need to be agreed for each stage of construction, which may include relocation of bus standing and any impacts on existing bus stand due to scaffolding or other temporary changes. Any scaffolding will also need to be agreed with LU to ensure that its installation does not result in time, cost or safety implications for the current Tottenham Court Road works. o Traffic management measures (works sites, construction loading areas) will need to be agreed with LU to ensure that they are co-ordinated with LU’s programme and logistics plans for the works at Tottenham Court Road station and do not impact on LU’s construction logistics (site vehicle movements, access and egress points). Equally, plans for pedestrian access around the site need to be agreed to ensure that there are no conflicts with station entrances. o In particular, there is a concern that Stage 2 of construction (currently estimated as November 2013 – March 2015) would conflict with the current LU programme for demolition of the existing station. At the latest this stage would need to be completed by December 2014, assuming that there is full coordination throughout 2014 to facilitate LU’s top level works. o It is also noted that the existing Centre Point stairs are to be demolished as part of the development proposals. The timing of this demolition work needs to be discussed further with LU as it will impact upon their works on the new pavilions. The lease on the stairs is currently owned by LUL but could be passed back to the applicant provided that the stairs are removed in 2014 in order to facilitate their works. S106 Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  London Plan Policy 6.5 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (July 2010) set out the mechanism for contributions towards Crossrail. The SPG states that contributions should be sought in respect of proposals for uplifts in floorspace for office, retail and hotel uses in central London where there is a cumulative uplift in such floorspace of more than 500sqm. This application proposes such an uplift but as the application also includes a change of use from office to primarily residential use, given the floor areas involved in this instance no charge would be levied under the SPG.  However, notwithstanding the above the Mayor of London introduced his Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1 April 2012. Most development that receives planning permission after this date will be liable to pay this CIL and the development is located in the London Borough of Camden, where the charge is £50 per square metre.

23 July (second response)  The modelling requirements for the assessment of the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street have been discussed with TfL. As the models necessary to determine the impact of the alterations to the local highway network proposed by this application are not available at this time the applicant had proposed an alternative approach. TfL expressed reservations about whether any surveys carried out now would be representative of normal conditions but it was felt that this was likely to be the most appropriate approach given the limited time available before a September 20th committee date.  TfL’s Forward Planning team (who would be responsible for approving any such work under the Traffic Management Act) have since advised that they do not consider that the applicant’s suggested approach would provide a suitably robust approach to assessing the impact of the scheme. Given that the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street is fundamental to the design of the scheme, TfL could not recommend the lifting of our objection to this application.  TfL are unable to offer a firm date by which the LUL modelling would be available for use by the applicant. Given the workloads of the teams that would be responsible for approving the modelling from now until the end of the Olympic Games it is unlikely that the models would be available for use in the next couple of months.  Paragraph 3.22 of the Centrepoint Transport Assessment states that ‘If the [proposals for the stopping up of St Giles High Street] did not proceed or were refused all the proposals for Centrepoint Tower and Centrepoint House could proceed and would function satisfactorily in terms of access and circulation’. By way of an alternative approach TfL suggests that a viable way forward could be to focus on a scheme that delivers the works to Centrepoint Tower and Centrepoint House first, with the public realm works and works to Centrepoint Link to follow once the issues surrounding modelling are resolved.

23 August (response to amended construction phase proposals) TfL’s overall position on the temporary layout is as follows:  Need to understand the implications of the realignment of St Giles High St and the signal changes in more detail as currently the proposed layout does not fit with the current proposals by LU for the Tottenham Court Road Station Upgrade project (stages D4 – D7) – more discussion is also required on the phasing  The construction hoardings around Centre Point are currently shown as sitting on the LU/TWBN project site – needs clarification of the acceptability of this  The Linsig model does not seem to be the most appropriate tool to assess the impact of the temporary layout and its validity and robustness of the outputs are questioned.  Further discussion is required around pedestrian access issues and the need for pedestrian flows assessment, scaffolding details etc, particularly along New Oxford Street and Earnshaw St  No dimension is provided on the layout and it is therefore difficult to understand if the footings are acceptable and if the facilities of the proposed gantry on New Oxford Street will affect lane widths – also impact on New Oxford St junction needs to be clarified  The sub-option egress solution exit proposed and associated traffic management for egressing the construction site from the Centre Point into Charing Cross Road needs to be explained – so more discussions required on site access  More info required on any utility works  Impact on buses (number and frequency) to assess if access to St Giles Street is to be restricted to one lane and on Charing Cross Road and location of bus stops to agree (bearing in mind comments made re servicing – see further below)  Confirmation about the relocation of the Crossrail Visitor Centre  Measures to minimise potential crime related activities resulting from the hoardings to clarify  Feedback from discussion about the impact on the works on the potential need to re-site VIC given the loss of pedestrian access  Arrangements for local business servicing to clarify and investigations to extend proposed loading bay to retain current existing dimensions

As clarified at yesterday’s meeting, TfL’s previous position on the end state proposals, which is the object of the current planning application, remains valid as still being considered unacceptable. I would reiterate that if determined at Camden’s September planning committee, TfL would support Camden recommendation towards a refusal. 4.2 London Underground – Confirmed that the London Underground Infrastructure protection response will be incorporated in the TfL Land use combined response.

4.3 English Heritage – Confirmed in writing no observations to make. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

4.4 English Heritage GLAAS  The site lies in an area where archaeological remains may be anticipated as it is within a designated Archaeological Priority Area. This is due to the medieval settlement and hospital of St Giles in the Fields and the subsequent 17th and 18th Century inner city expansion. Archaeological deposits dating from the Roman period onwards have been found in the immediate vicinity with a particular emphasis on medieval and post medieval remains.  The submitted assessment report has been able to demonstrate that it is unlikely that remains of national or higher importance are present on the site, however there are areas within the development site where archaeological deposits may survive and which will potentially be affected by the development proposals. Of particular note is the extension of the basement levels, which may affect deep cut features such as ditches, cess pitts, soak aways and cellars.  In accordance with the NPPF and LDF policies a record should be made of the heritage assets prior to development.  Condition recommended regarding the submission of a written scheme of investigation

4.5 Twentieth Century Society  While certain aspects of the proposals are to be welcomed, overall the Society has concerns relating to the proposed infill bridge, proposed facades of the tower and Centre Point House, and relocation of the external stairs.  Centre Point’s bravado and high level of detailing makes it one of the finest of the tower blocks built to the designs of Richard Seifert and George Marsh in the 1960s. It is widely recognised as the one of the finest most important speculative office building of its time, and was added to the statutory list in 1995 for is architectural interest and innovation. Not only is the tower itself of interest, but also its relationship with the link and rear block, each element individually expressed to identify its function. It is also the only listed building by this highly influential firm.  Centre Point was both technically and architecturally pioneering; it was the first tall building in England to use precast concrete components and also the first not to require scaffolding. Centre Point is also important for initiating the shift away from the plain glass curtain wall trend, which dominated the commercial tower block sector. Centre Point’s flamboyant sculptural architectural treatment can be accredited for significantly contributing to a more imaginative language in corporate architecture.  Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. It adds that significance can be harmed tor lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm should require clear and convincing justification.  The Society is comfortable with the principle of the proposed change of use of Centre Point tower, the Centre Point Link and change of use of Centre Point House at first and second floor levels. Members also felt that the new public realm would be a positive addition to the setting. However, the Society has serious concerns regarding several aspects of the proposals, each of which are addressed in turn: a) Infill unit below bridge - Members of the committee felt that the part in-fill under the link bridge and major alteration to the plan form would be detrimental to the significance of this three part composition. This is specifically relevant to the bridge link which loses its identifiable original function and relationship to its neighbours as a ‘bridge’ with void beneath if part of the space beneath is in- filled. Members felt strongly that in-filling this section would be harmful this composition that is read as three identifiable parts. b) Centre Point Tower facades - Plans for the proposed replacement Centre Point Tower fenestration show an altered geometry in the proposed pattern (chapter 6.6.4, p142, Design and Access Statement). No supporting information has been provided to justify this change. There is also no justification regarding the loss of the form of the solid spandrel panel and alteration to clear glazing, which the Society considers will have a significant visual impact. c) Projecting Stair and external bench - The Society views the external cantilevered staircases as expressive and sculptural features that are an essential and dramatic part of the building. The Society strongly objects to their removal and relocation within the building. We understand that the front stair is already compromised by the Crossrail proposals and thus it is of added importance that the rear stair is maintained in its current original position. The associated external bench forms part of the sculptural composition of the tower, along with the stair and should remain in-situ as public seating. d) Centre Point House facades - Members felt that the proposed replacement of the façades of Centre Point House would result in the loss of almost the entire existing historic 1960s curtain walling fabric of the building. This applies not only to the alterations to the ‘brise soleil’, but the replacement curtain walling and balcony details such as the replacement balustrade and mosaic and tiling details. The committee felt that this was excessive, and would result in substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. It was felt that insufficient justification had been submitted to support this level of intervention and loss of historic fabric. The Society’s view is that alternative options that conserve a greater level of historic fabric should be fully explored. These comments do not relate to the ground floor retail frontages which have been extensively altered, and are of much less importance.  Conclusion - Overall, members felt that many of the changes were unnecessary and detrimental to the character of the building and would result in the excessive loss of historic fabric of this important landmark building. The Society took the view that the overall effect of the proposals would result in harm to the designated asset, as a result of the extent of loss of historic fabric and alteration to the original plan form. This level of intervention is not supported with sufficient justification, as required by paragraph 132 of the NPPF. Members would also like to see further investigation of alternatives that would allow more of the original facades to be retained. As such the Twentieth Century Society strongly objects to the proposals.

4.6 Thames Water – No objection and have recommended a number of informatives regarding the timing of the emptying of the pool; installation of fat traps; groundwater discharge permit; water pressure and water metering.

4.7 City of Westminster – confirmed in writing that it does not wish to comment on the proposals.

Conservation Area Advisory Committee

4.8 No comments received

Local Groups

4.9 No comments received

Adjoining Occupiers

Number of letters sent 314 Total number of responses received 0 Number of electronic responses 0 Number in support 2 Number of objections 33

4.10 A press notice was in place between 28 June and 19 July. Nine site notices were erected between 15 June and 6 July. Letters were sent to 314 residents on 14 June and 35 comments and objections were received from 6, 27, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40 (2 responses), 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 52, 53 & No number given Matilda Apartments; 1, 10, 14, 18 (2 responses), 26, 30, 31 and representative of leaseholder of 6 flats (no numbers given) Centre Point House; 101 New Oxford Street; 6th Floor and 31st/32nd/33rd floors Centre Point; Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, 235 Shaftsbury Avenue: 100 Darwin court, Gloucester Avenue; 15a St. Giles High Street; flat 31, 4 Earnshaw Street.

Uses  A3 and A4 uses are proposed – please be advised that 36 residential flats are located above these and there is a high risk of interference with quite enjoyment of these flats. Could the uses not be restricted to A1 because of noise, nuisance, violence and public disorder issues from having bars and restaurants located below residential units;  Need to minimise any detrimental affect on residential flat owners in Centre Point House from the restaurant and bar uses in terms of noise and disturbance (deliveries, bottle collection, music), long opening hours and the location of extraction fans (potential smell impact and current wind conditions would blow smell into residential windows)  Concerns re relocation of extract ducts onto Earnshaw Street and the sight and smells these may bring. Can these not be distributed around the development instead of having one exit point  More information needed on planned outdoor dining and drinking as this can cause noise issues as well as the noise from setting up and clearing the chairs;  Who will have access to the bridge link and what will it be used for?  101 New Oxford Street has recently been purchased and the application appears to be for flexible uses on the ground floor for A1/A3 and A4. We hope that nothing in the application detracts from the ability to use No. 101 as an A4 unit.  Enough commercial development in the area, if the application is granted the area will become flooded with commerce. Top floor restaurant/bar use  Withdrawal of the upper floors of the building as public space is unacceptable.  Leaseholder of 31st/32nd/33rd floors Centre Point (bar/restaurant) objects to the planning application because the proposal is contrary to policy (loss of employment floorspace and lack of affordable housing), there will be adverse socio economic impacts (loss of 2,595 jobs including 95 in the bar/restaurant) , the proposal will result in the loss of an important and unique tourist asset with the loss of the bar/restaurant at 31st/32nd/33rd floors at and there are deficiencies in the Environmental Statement (does not refer to the bar/restaurant use in the tower). Refuse  Increase refuse space accordingly; locate refuse area away from bedrooms above; stop other developments using the refuse area at Centre Point House Affordable Housing  Support the application provided that a significant element of social housing results from this development. May not be practical for this to be located within Centre Point Tower, but it should be located as close to the site as possible. We are aware that an equal amount of private to social housing was achieved on the St. Giles Court development and we understand that there are suitable sites available nearby and hope that a comparable social housing ratio will be achieved on this site. Buses  Will relocating the bus stands to Earnshaw street displace existing car parking spaces?  The closure of St Giles High Street and relocation of the bus stands on Earnshaw street will result in lots of buses crowding this narrow street causing pollution, noise, disruption, unnecessary obstruction, increase the number of people and traffic on the street (increase the number of buses by at least 12 an hour which is an extra bus every 5 minutes), increase congestion, create unsafe conditions, make it difficult to cross the road safely and will be an eyesore.  The front door of Matilda Apartments directly faces the proposed bus stop location and this is not conducive to an enjoyable living condition  A dedicated area for the bus stands should be found not just dumping them in the first ‘available’ street  Rather than relocating the buses to Earnshaw Street the proposal should be for Earnshaw Street to be pedestranised and this will link Centre Point with the St Giles development and improve integration between residents and retailers and make the area safer. Parking/servicing  More info needed on parking spaces below Centre Point House – will there by any changes which will result in cars coming and going more frequently that at present. Also will current residents have any access to parking  The loading bays should be hidden from view, maybe by having underground loading bays.  The deliveries and loading bays will be opposite residential units which will cause noise and upset, add to noise pollution and congestion especially if deliveries occur in the early morning or late evening and will make the area look unattractive.  Current proposal shows little consideration for the residents on Earnshaw street as the road will become little more than a service road and the ‘back door’ of the Centre Point development Construction  Object to works being carried out on weekends due to the noise  Cannot cope with another 3-4 years of noise and nuisance from more construction work.  Construction work will lead to vacancy of residential units and loss of income

4.11 Two letters of support have been received from 85 New Oxford Street and 10 South Crescent  Centre Point is one of London’s most iconic buildings, but Centre Point House, the bridge link and the associated public realm have fared less well over time.  The tower has very tight floor to floor heights and relatively small floor plates which are no longer attractive or viable in London’s office market. The loss of office floorspace is offset by the completion of new grade a office space in the Central St. Giles scheme  New residential use is welcomed as a means of breathing new lift into this building and securing its long term future.  The improved balance to the community will reduce demand on public transport.  The pedestrianisation of the wider public realm is welcomed.  Care should be taken to avoid too many links to the public space. Puzzled by the proposal to cut an opening through Centre Point House.  The proposed scheme will be a destination that London can be proud of.

5. POLICIES

5.1 LDF Core Strategy and Development Policies CS1 – Distribution of growth CS2 – Growth areas CS5 – Managing the impact of growth and development CS6 – Providing quality homes CS7 – Promoting Camden’s centres and shops CS8 – Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden economy CS9 – Achieving a successful Central London CS10 – Supporting community facilities and services CS11 – Promoting sustainable and efficient travel CS13 – Tackling climate change through promoting higher environmental standards CS14 - Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage CS15 – Protecting and improving our parks and open spaces and encouraging biodiversity CS16 – Improving Camden’s health and wellbeing CS17 – Making Camden a safer place CS18 – Dealing with our waste and encouraging recycling CS19 – Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy DP1 – Mixed use development DP2 – Making full use of Camden's capacity for housing DP3 – Contributions to the supply of affordable housing DP5 – Homes of different sizes DP6 – Lifetime homes and wheelchair homes DP10 – Helping and promoting small and independent shops DP12 – Supporting strong centres and managing the impact of food, drink, entertainment and other town centre uses DP13 – Employment premises and sites DP15 – Community and leisure uses DP16 – The transport implications of development DP17 – Walking, cycling and public transport DP18 – Parking standards and limiting the availability of car parking DP19 – Managing the impact of parking DP20 – Movement of goods and materials DP21 – Development connecting to the highway network DP22 – Promoting sustainable design and construction DP23 – Water DP24 – Securing high quality design DP25 – Conserving Camden's heritage DP26 – Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours DP27 – Basements and lightwells DP28 – Noise and vibration DP29 – Improving access DP30 – Shopfronts DP31 – Provision of, and improvements to, open space and outdoor sport and recreation facilities DP32 – Air quality and Camden’s clear zone

5.2 Supplementary Planning Policies Planning Framework for the Tottenham Court Road Station and St Giles High Street Area (July 2004) Denmark St Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (March 2010) Camden Planning Guidance (April 2011) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

5.3 Other material documents St Giles to Holborn draft Place Plan (July 2012) LDF site allocations (submission document, March 2012) St Giles Urban Realm – summary design report & Stage E report (November 2011) Camden Statement of Licensing Policy 2011

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal consideration material to the determination of this application are summarised as follows:  Land use (employment floorspace, residential units, affordable housing, restaurant uses)  Transport implications  Design  Amenity impacts  Other matters – sustainability, CIL, basement extension, wind

6.2 Land Use 6.2.1 Employment floorspace Policy CS8 seeks to ensure that the borough retains a strong economy. It seeks to do this by, amongst other things, safeguarding existing employment sites that meet the needs of modern industry and employers. Policy CS8 also states that The Council will consider proposals for other uses of older office premises if they involve the provision of permanent housing (in particular, affordable housing) and community uses. Policy DP13 seeks to implement the priorities outlined in CS8 and states that the Council will retain land and buildings that are suitable for continued business use and will resist a change to non-business use unless it can be demonstrated that the site is no longer suitable for its existing business use, and there is evidence that the possibility of re-using or redeveloping the site for alternative business use is not viable. CPG5 (Town Centres, Retail and Employment) identifies a number of considerations that will be taken into account when assessing applications for a change of use from office to a non business use (in addition to criteria in DP13).

6.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 51 that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

6.2.3 Given the amount of employment floorspace involved with this application and the potential numbers of people employed in the building (27,516sqm with a conference facility within the bridge link and approximately 1,250 people employed) the applicant has submitted information with regard to the DP13 and CPG5 criteria, and an Economic Assessment.

6.2.4 With regard to the policy DP13 and CPG5 criteria, a summary is provided below: DP13  Located in or adjacent to the Industry Area, or other locations suitable for large scale general industry and warehousing - The site is not located in or adjacent to the Industry Area and as the site is located at the junction of Oxford Street and Charing Cross Road/Tottenham Court Road, it is not suitable for large scale general industry and warehousing.  Is in a location suitable for a mix of uses including light industry and local distribution warehousing - The site is in a location suitable for a mix of uses including retail, leisure, residential and Class B1 office use but is not located in an area suitable for light industry and local distribution warehousing.  Is easily accessible to the Transport for London Road Network and/or London Distributor Roads - The site is easily accessible to the Transport for London Road Network but the roads in this part of London are predominantly occupied by buses, taxis and cars.  Is, or will be, accessible by means other than the car and has the potential to be serviced by rail or water - The site is accessible by Underground, buses, taxi and cycle but does not have the potential to be serviced by rail or water.  Has adequate on-site vehicle space for servicing - The site has on-site vehicle space for servicing at basement level from the existing ramp on Earnshaw Street. This access however, has a height restriction and only small servicing vehicles can access the basement.  Is well related to nearby land uses - The site is located in the Central Area Zone, at the important junction of Tottenham Court Road/Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street. It is extremely well located and is in an area with a concentration of office and employment uses.  Is in a reasonable condition to allow the use to continue - The existing office floorspace is considered to be of poor quality which does not meet modern occupier requirements. Throughout its history Centre Point Tower has almost never been substantially let. The Economic Assessment concludes that the existing building is reaching the end of its economic life, requires substantial investment in its fabric to ensure that the future of this listed building can be secured and this level of investment cannot be generated by continued office use (see paragraph ???)  Is near to other industry and warehousing, noise/vibration generating uses, pollution and hazards - The site is not located close to other industry and warehousing uses and noise/vibration generating uses, pollution or hazards.  Provides a range of unit sizes, particularly those suitable for small businesses (under 100sqm) – Existing tenants predominantly occupy a single floor equating to approximately 420sqm, and a few floors have been partitioned to provide smaller units of approximately 185sqm. The Economic Assessment provides more information on the fact that the smaller occupiers tent to be higher risk in terms of lease length and covenant strength which has a direct impact upon revenues.

CPG5  The age of the premises (some older premises may be more suitable to conversion) - The building was constructed in the 1960s and does not meet modern office occupier requirements. The building is however, particularly suited to conversion to residential use. Section 6 of the Design and Access Statement provides more information in this regard.  Whether the premises include features required by tenants seeking modern office accommodation – In spite of the Central London location the premises does not include features required by tenants seeking modern office accommodation; the floor to ceiling heights are already restricted and a Grade A refurbishment would further reduce this by around 500mm; the energy performance of the building is poor. This is set out in more detail in the Economic Assessment  The quality of the premises and whether it is purpose built accommodation (poor quality premises that require significant investment to bring up to modern standards may be suitable for conversion) – Whilst the buildings were purpose built office accommodation the Economic Assessment and the Design and Access Statement provides information to show that the building requires significant investment to secure its future, but even with a significant amount of investment in its fabric and services, the building cannot be brought up to Grade A specification.  Whether there are existing tenants in the building, and whether these tenants intend to relocate - There are existing tenants within the buildings but generally these are on short leases.  The location of the premises and evidence of demand for office space in this location - The building is located in the CAZ and there is significant demand for office space in this location but the demand in the west end is predominantly for Grade A office space. The Economic Assessment confirms that there is approximately 113,000sqm of office accommodation in the pipeline and approximately 83,612sqm of second hand space available to lease in Noho / Soho / Bloomsbury area.  Whether the premises currently provide accommodation for small and medium businesses - Existing tenants predominantly occupy a single floor equating to approximately 420sqm, and a few floors have been partitioned to provide smaller units of approximately 185sqm. The Economic Assessment provides more information on the fact that the smaller occupiers tent to be higher risk in terms of lease length and covenant strength which has a direct impact upon revenues.

6.2.5 The Economic Assessment examines the office accommodation in the building in relation to whether it is ‘functionally obsolete’ and whether it is economically viable to retain. The Council has employed BPS to independently review the information in the Economic Assessment. BPS have tested extensively the assumptions made in relation to the income and expenditure projections over the next 10 years and have reviewed the supporting information. BPS have also requested additional information and asked for amendments to the assumptions, including estimated projected returns over a longer 25 year period; amendments to the cash flow models and a reduction to net expenditure forecasts. BPS have advised that they are satisfied with the amended appraisals, forecasts, assumptions and inputs. They also agree with the applicant’s conclusion that the building is reaching the end of its useful life; requires substantial investment in its fabric to ensure that the future of this listed building can be secured; and this level of investment cannot be generated by continued office use and the overall conclusion that the proposed change of use is warranted on economic grounds.

6.2.6 The proposed loss of B1 office floorspace is considered to be acceptable and appropriate given the site context and information submitted with the Economic Assessment. .

6.2.7 Residential Policy CS6 relates to a wide range of housing, including permanent self-contained housing. The general approach outlined in CS6 aims to make full use of Camden’s capacity for housing. The Council encourages the creation of additional residential accommodation provided that it meets acceptable standards. All flats would be accessed via a new entrance and reception area at ground and mezzanine level using the two existing lift cores. Each flat would be entirely self contained, would have adequate light and ventilation and would meet the CPG floorspace standards. Given the fact that this is largely a conversion, that the single aspect units would either face east or west (and are not north facing) and that the flats are of a generous size it is considered that the inclusion of these single aspect units is acceptable. No amenity space is proposed in the form of private balconies or roof terraces, give the fact that this is the conversion of a listed building with the provision of new public realm at ground floor level this is considered to be acceptable. The scheme does provide ancillary residential uses at first floor level in the form of a gym, pool and spa and this space is welcomed.

6.2.8 Policy DP5 seeks to provide a range of unit sizes to meet demand across the borough. In order to define what kind of mix should be provided within residential schemes, Policy DP5 includes a Dwelling Size Priority Table and the expectation is that any housing scheme will meet the priorities outlined in the table and will provide at least 40% 2 bed units. The inclusion of ?? of two bed units (? units) in the scheme and ??% larger units (? x 3bed and ? x 4 bed) is therefore considered acceptable.

6.2.9 Policy DP6 requires all new dwellings be designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards. A lifetime homes assessment has been submitted with the applications and which shows that it is possible to meet all the 16 criteria. Policy DP6 (Lifetime Homes) states that 10% of homes development should either meet wheelchair housing standards or be easily adapted to them. If all of the criteria cannot be met a ‘best endeavours’ exercise should be undertaken by the applicants to justify the reasons why the development cannot meet the criteria. The proposal is for ????

6.2.10 The LDF site allocations (March 2012) document states that development within the ‘St Giles Circus’ site is expected to appropriately restore, convert and redevelop buildings and sites to include a mix of uses appropriate to a Central London location including retail, residential (including affordable housing), offices and leisure.

6.2.11 CPG guidance requires the provision of 9 sq m of open space per person for residential developments providing 5 or more additional dwellings. Open Space provision will initially be expected to be provided on site. Where a site cannot provide open space provision on site the preferred option would be to provide suitable open space off-site, but at a maximum of 400m from the development. If either of the above are not practical a financial contribution to open space will be acceptable. The contribution expected for this development would be £???. If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects this would be secured via a S106. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.2.12 All residential developments involving a net increase of 5 or more units will normally be expected to provide a contribution towards education provision in the Borough (excluding any affordable elements of a housing scheme). The contribution sought is proportionate to the size of dwellings proposed, and is not sought for single-bed units, as these are unlikely to house children. The contribution expected for this development would be £???? (£2,213 for each of the ? x 2b, £6,322 for each of the ? x 3b and £21,494 for the ? x 4b unit) and If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects this would be secured via a S106. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.2.13 Affordable housing Policy CS6 expects all developments with a capacity to provide 10 units or more (or 1,000 sqm GEA or more) to make a contribution to affordable housing. Policy DP3 expects the affordable housing contribution to be made on site, but where it cannot practically be achieved on site the Council may accept off site affordable housing or exceptionally a payment in lieu. Policy DP3 states that the Council will negotiate the development of individual sites to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on the basis of an affordable housing target of 50% of the total addition to housing floorspace. With the provision of 82 units and approximately 26,000 sqm (GIA/GEA??) of residential floorspace the requirements of these policies have been triggered. It should be noted that the policy requirements are for ???sqm of floorspace on site.

6.2.14 DP3 goes on to list six criteria to be taken into account when assessing whether affordable housing can practically be provided on site as follows:  Access to public transport, workplaces, shops, services and community facilitates;  The character of the development, the site and the area;  Site size and constraints on including a mix of market and affordable tenures;  The economics and financial viability of the development including any particular costs associated with it;  The impact on the creation of mixed and inclusive communities; and  Any other planning objectives considered to be a priority for the site. The supporting text for this policy lists at paragraph 3.14 additional criteria to be taken into account which in summary are any physical constraints of the site; service charges which would be too costly; particular development costs; timings for affordable housing funding; and whether an off site contribution will maximise the overall delivery of housing and affordable housing.

6.2.15 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 50 that Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends; and identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required. It also states that where a need for affordable housing is established, polices should be set for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.

6.2.16 The LDF site allocations (March 2012) document states that development within the ‘St Giles Circus’ site is expected to maximise the potential of sites to provide new housing (including affordable housing) while minimising potential conflicts between residential and other uses.

6.2.17 In line with policy DP3 the assessment of the affordable housing provision has focused on whether there are any physical reasons why affordable housing cannot be provided on site; whether there are any management/service charge reasons and whether there are any viability reasons (including whether the overall offer would be better with off site provision). The application was originally submitted without any on site affordable housing and the applicant stated that this was because of issues with lift access in the tower; that they considered it was not financially viable to provide affordable housing in the tower; that the units in Centre Point House under the applicant’s ownership are pepper potted throughout the building and that a more meaningful contribution towards affordable housing could be created with the off site provision of affordable housing units. The physical, management and viability issues will now be taken in turn.

6.2.18 Physical matters Centre Point Tower The applicant has provided information with regard to the location of separate entrances/lobbies into the building for private and affordable tenures; lift access for each tenure; and structural constraints of the building.

6.2.19 The building currently has two lift cores at each end of the building with three lifts in each core which provide access from the ground and mezzanine levels to the upper floors. There is then a separate smaller lift providing access between the ground floor and basement level and this is located in the centre of the floor plan. The proposal with 100% private units in the tower originally included the relocation of this smaller lift adjacent to one of the lift cores and for it to provide access between the mezzanine, ground and basement levels. This has now been amended and one lift in each core has been extended down to the basement level.

6.2.20 The information submitted by the applicant shows that two separate entrances can be provided for affordable housing tenants who could access each lift core directly at ground floor level and have two small lobby areas with post boxes. Private tenants would then have a separate entrance into the main ground floor area, would use stairs or a separate lift (which already exists was originally to be relocated) up to the concierge and would then access the two lift cores at mezzanine level. This means that one lift in each core would be used by both affordable and private residents using lift key cards, but not at the same time. They have stated that this arrangement is unacceptable as the private units would be less marketable and that, should one lift in each core break down, the lift waiting times would be 1 minute instead of the expected 20-30 seconds.

6.2.21 Another option has also been presented with the provision of one new lift in each core solely for the use of affordable housing residents. This would include additional expense, the provision of lift overruns on the floor above the affordable housing units and the consequent loss of private accommodation.

6.2.22 With regard to structural constraints of the building the applicant has stated that the location of the concrete divisions along the façade mean that it would be unacceptable to have room partitions in the middle of windows. They then go on to say that because the bays are located at 2.5m distances there is an issue because 2.5m is too narrow for a room and 5m (two bays) is too large. This is not fully explained or justified because floor layouts have also been provided which show that the provision of an increased number of smaller affordable housing units on each floor results in acceptable room sizes, flat sizes and flat layouts. The applicant states that it is not possible to provide all dual aspect units, balconies, separate kitchens from living space in larger units, and that not all the rooms will meet lifetime home or GLA standards and this restricts the building’s ability to provide affordable housing. None of these points are unusual for conversion schemes and officers consider that the layout examples submitted to substantiate these points show units which would provide a more than acceptable standard of accommodation.

6.2.23 Furthermore the floorplan of the building allows for much flexibility in terms of the range different unit sizes which can be accommodated on any one floor. It also appears possible for vertical sub division to take place with half of a floor accommodating affordable units and half accommodating private units and each having access to the separate lift cores.

6.2.23 In conclusion, in discussions with the applicant to date there has not been any justification provided as to why it is not physically possible to provide both affordable and private units within Centre Point Tower. It is acknowledged that the option of providing new lifts for the sole use of the affordable housing units is not an ideal solution, but the option for provided key access to each tenure to share one of the lifts in each core appears acceptable: a one minute lift waiting time in the event of occasional lift breakdown is not considered to be sufficient justification for not providing affordable housing floorspace in the building.

6.2.24 Centre Point House The applicant owns 10 residential units within Centre Point House (three units on the two lower floors and four units on the upper floor). These units are ‘scissor units’ and are all provided on two floors, with living rooms and kitchens on one level and the two bedrooms on another level.

6.2.25 The applicant has stated that they do not currently meet lifetime homes standards and do not meet the criteria set out in CPG2 with regard to access from a single corridor, ceiling heights, lack of cycle storage, no level access to balconies that they are unsuitable for affordable housing. Whilst it is acknowledged that they may not meet all the CPG2 criteria, they are existing units which have already been constructed and the CPG2 criteria is therefore not overriding. It is acknowledged that these units would not meet the higher priorities for social housing as they are all 2 bedroom units and would not meet Lifetime Homes standards and Council officers have approached two RSL’s who have confirmed that they would seek a waiver from this requirement in light of the building’s listed status.

6.2.26 It is acknowledged that these units are ‘pepper potted’ throughout the building and again Council officers have approached two RSL’s to discuss this matter and they have confirmed that this would not preclude them from managing the units. 6.2.27 In conclusion, in discussions with the applicant to date there has not been any justification provided as to why it is not physically possible to provide affordable housing units in Centre Point House together with the existing private residential units.

6.2.28 Management issues Policy DP3 acknowledges that there may be situations where the management or service charges of an on site scheme would be too costly for affordable housing providers or occupiers to meet. The applicant has submitted information on the estimated service charges for both Centre Point Tower and Centre Point House. It is not clear whether the service charge cost for the Tower has been adjusted to take into account of the fact that any affordable housing units in the tower would not be contributing towards services provided for the private tenants (gym, pool, spa, concierge, larger ground and mezzanine reception area). If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects there would be further discussion with the applicant on the service charges in order to ensure that they were correct estimates. Further discussions would then have been required regarding the potential use of any S106 contribution to be allocated as a ‘commuted sum’ to contribute towards some or all of these service charge costs.

6.2.29 Viability issues The applicant has submitted a Financial Viability Assessment which considers the following two scenarios: 1. 50% housing and 50% office floorspace provided on site (with the housing being 100% private) 2. 100% housing provided on site (with 50% affordable and 50% private) The report concludes that neither option is viable and states that there is £20.3million available instead as a S106 financial contribution to cover affordable housing and any other S106 items. Further information has been submitted since the application was submitted and the overall conclusion by the applicant is that if ten affordable housing units were provided in Centre Point House there would be £12.8million available as a S106 financial contribution. The applicant concludes that the provision of off site affordable housing would enable a greater number and range of affordable housing units to be provided than could be on-site.

6.2.30 The Council has employed BPS to independently review the information in the Financial Viability Assessment. BPS have advised that the methodology adopted by the applicant is sound, but there are a number of areas where agreement has yet to be reached. Specifically there are works proposed to Centre Point House which appear to not be essential to the scheme; there is a difference of opinion between the applicant and BPS as to what the ‘base value’ of the site should be; and there are changes to the mix of one or two floors which BPS consider would increase the value of the development (and still be in line with policy DP5). Additionally the impact on the values of the private units from the inclusion of affordable housing units in the Tower has yet to be agreed. With these uncertainties it is difficult to reach a conclusion regarding whether the proposed ten units in Centre Point House is the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that can be provided on site. Any changes could have a significant effect on the financial results and to the overall conclusion of the Financial Viability Assessment: it could show that it is viable to provide affordable housing units in the tower as well as in Centre Point House, or could result in there being two options for the provision of affordable housing on site (in the tower or in Centre Point House, notwithstanding that Centre Point House is unlikely to be able to provide the highest priority accommodation in terms of unit sizes). However the applicant is unwilling to locate any affordable housing in the Tower and is currently not able to offer any additional units in Centre Point House because they are subject to leaseholds.

6.2.31 The applicant has explored the provision of affordable housing on other sites and a total of fifty seven sites were initially looked at. Twenty three of these sites were north of the Euston Road and were therefore not in an acceptable location, twelve were considered to be too small, eight already had work underway on site, and four were non starters for reasons such as not being defined sites or planning permission recently refused. Ten sites therefore reached the stage where schemes were modelled on site, but these were discounted because site acquisition was unviable, the site’s were too small, there were timescale issues and sites were identified already for other uses. One Council owned site was considered in this list at Saffron Hill (NCP car park) and this was discounted because land assembly was considered unviable. One further redevelopment site was identified adjacent to Centre Point House but this site is not in the applicant’s ownership (check with applicant on Friday) and there are potential issues with regard to daylight/sunlight and impact on listed buildings. The applicant has not therefore been able to demonstrate any certainty that there are any sites where affordable housing could be provided ‘off site’.

6.2.32 Deferred payments Given the uncertainties outlined above in particular with regard to sales values a deferred contribution would be expected at this site. As with any other development scheme in the current market in Central London and given the sensitivities with the financial viability of this scheme it is likely that a small change to the sales values will result in a large change to the viability of providing affordable housing in the tower. If the scheme were acceptable in all other respects further negotiation on this would take place with the applicant and Council Officers would wish to explore whether the deferred contribution could be in the form of additional units on site instead of a financial contribution. It is expected that this could be secured with the submission of an ‘affordable housing plan’ which would identify an amount of additional floorspace which could be provided on site, prior to occupation of any private units. This ‘affordable housing plan’ would need to show exactly how these additional units would be provided.

6.2.33 In conclusion officers consider that there are no practical reasons or physical constraints to the existing buildings to justify not providing affordable housing on site. Nor are there any physical constraints which would make the management of on site affordable housing impractical. There is insufficient information to demonstrate what is the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that could be provided on site. The policy tests have not been demonstrated to justify a cascade to off site provision and in any case too little certainty has been offered with regard to any off site provision. Officers are therefore unable to assess whether a more meaningful contribution towards affordable housing could be created with the off site provision of affordable housing units. Policy double check 6.3 Transport implications 6.3.1 The site has a PTAL score of 6b, the highest achievable, which indicates that it has an excellent level of accessibility by public transport. The nearest station is Tottenham Court Road, with Holborn, Goodge Street, Oxford Circus and Leicester Square all within walking distance. The accessibility of the site will be further increased following the introduction of Crossrail services at Tottenham Court Road in 2018. The nearest bus stops for the many bus routes are located on St Giles High Street (outside St Giles in the Fields Church), on New Oxford Street, on Charing Cross Road and on Tottenham Court Road. There are a number of bus stands and stops adjacent to or within the site as follows:  Two stands are located on the western side of Earnshaw Street for route 1  Two stands are located on the western side of St Giles High Street for route 134  Two stands are located on the eastern side of St Giles High Street for route 242; and  Two stands are located on southern end of St Giles High Street for route 176.  One bus stop is located on St Giles High Street for routes 24, 29, 234, 176 and 242. The site is within a controlled parking zone which operates between 8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and suffers from parking stress. The London Borough of Camden is the highway authority for all roads in the area, while Oxford Street and New Oxford Street are part of TfL’s Strategic Road Network.

6.3.2 The proposal includes changes to the existing vehicular access ramp on Earnshaw Street which would be replaced with two car lifts and a servicing area. The existing basement car park will be used for the location of plant, cycle parking and some car parking (with a reduction of spaces from 105 to 36). The proposal also includes the closure of the northern part of St Giles High Street from March 2013 during the construction period to create a works site and its permanent closure at the end of the works to create a new public square. These works would involved the consequent diversion of bus routes and relocation of bus stands and stops as follows:  Bus routes 134 and 242 currently travel through the site on St Giles High Street and these day-time routes would need to be diverted to Earnshaw Street.  Bus routes N35, N68 and N253 currently travel through the site on St Giles High Street and these night-time routes would need to be diverted. These routes have not been considered by the applicant in their transport assessment, but it is presumed that these would also be diverted to Earnshaw Street.  It is difficult to say exactly which bus routes, stands and stops would be relocated in the area because TfL would have the final say on the relocation of any bus stands or bus routes. It may be possible for bus stands to be relocated onto other streets including Earnshaw Street, Great Russell Street and further east on St Giles High Street. The applicant is proposing to provide the new public square themselves as part of the development proposal and to provide a financial contribution towards further public realm/highway works in the area to complement and complete these works.

6.3.3 Road closure and provision of public realm A feasibility study is underway to restore two-way working on Tottenham Court Road, and as part of this study the opportunities to create pedestrian routes and public areas by closing or redesigning sections of streets is to be explored. The St Giles to Holborn Place Plan (July 2012) sets out a vision for the area and envisages ‘an area where the opportunities to create new distinctive public spaces are seized’. The provision of new public realm at St Giles Circus is identified in the LDF draft Site Allocations document (March 2012) along with the potential to reconsider bus movements and stands and, where appropriate and feasible, to remove traffic through road closures. The full scope of the St Giles Circus proposals is dependant on implementing the wider Tottenham Court Road 2 way project and funding has been secured from TfL for further analysis of these works including the closure of the northern end of St Giles High Street.

6.3.4 It should be noted that the Place Plan and Sites Allocation documents are not yet adopted Council Policy, but are at ‘such and such stage’ and are therefore material considerations in the assessment of any planning applications.

6.3.5 It is acknowledged that the closure of St. Giles High Street and the provision of a new public square is an aspiration shared by the Council and many of the stakeholders in the area. The development proposals have however, been submitted before the impacts of the closure of St Giles High Street on the surrounding road network has been fully understood and assessed by the Council and Transport for London, and before the proposals have undergone a comprehensive public consultation.

6.3.6 Traffic modelling is currently being undertaken on behalf of TfL and LB Camden in the wider area and it is anticipated that this work will be completed and assessed by TfL by March 2013 (check date with Simi or Franco). This modelling will consider the impact of the road closure on the Strategic Route Network and the local roads in the area, specifically the impact on traffic flows, junction capacity, bus routes and location of bus stands/stops. Without this wider modelling work it is not possible to determine whether the proposed road closure is acceptable or not. The applicant has made reasonable attempts to suggest alternative ways to assess the impact of the road closure using more junction specific models based on traffic counts obtained w/c 16 July 2012. Officers are not confident that these traffic counts provide an accurate representation of the situation as they were taken during the last week of the school term when the Olympic Route Network was in place (the ORN was not in place but the Media Hub had started operating and I think the “Olympic effect” had started). The timing of the submission of these junction specific models also clashed with a period when TfL officers were focused on working on previously programmed work on the Olympics and Paralympics and were not able to assess the methodology or results. Officers are therefore concerned about the robustness of the approach suggested by the applicant.

6.3.7 The proposed road closure is a key component of the scheme and is required in order to implement the proposed extension under the bridge link as well as the proposed public square. It is not possible to restrict this part of the scheme with the use of a condition or S106 clause, for example by requiring the submission of further modelling work and TfL approval prior to the implementation of the extension works, as this would effectively result in the approval of a scheme without the fully appreciating or assessing the impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed road closure is therefore considered to be unacceptable at this point in time and the proposal is recommended for refusal on this basis.

6.3.8 Road closure during construction The original proposal was to close St Giles High Street in March 2013 in order to facilitate the construction of the scheme as the proposal included a works site here. The scheme has consequently been revised to include the realignment of this part of St Giles High Street and the consequent use of the land to the east of the realigned road as a works site. The revised construction arrangements appear acceptable in principle and do not appear to have any significant impacts on the operation of the Strategic Route Network. Because of TfL’s Olympic and Paralympic work commitments it has not been possible for them to confirm whether the revisions overcome part of their objection. The amended scheme has an impact on bus journey times which could in turn have an impact on Crossrail construction phase D3 (between April 2013 and September 2013) and their objection may still stand because of this. Officers consider that during the later Crossrail construction phases D4 to D7 there will not any noticeable impacts on the operation of the SRN. ??If the proposal was acceptable in all other respects I would suggest a condition requiring the start of works to be delayed until the D4 phase of the Tottenham Court Road Station Improvements are put in place (i.e. currently September 2013 – is this 2015 and not 2013?) until such time that the applicant can provide written evidence of TfL approval to proceed at an earlier date (e.g. April 2013).??

6.3.9 Public Realm/Highway improvements In line with policies DP21 to repair any damage caused to the highway during construction and to tie the development into the surrounding urban environment. If the proposed road closure and public square were acceptable in all other respects a financial contribution would be secured via a S106 to provide the new public square and associated works in the surrounding area. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.3.10 Given the scale of the proposed development, and the relative increase in pedestrian and cycle movements to the site a financial contribution towards Pedestrian, Cycling and Environmental Improvements would normally be secured with a S106 agreement as the predicted trips would have an impact on the surrounding footways and public transport facilities. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.3.11 Pedestrian routes Policy DP21 seeks to avoid causing harm to highway safety or hinder pedestrian movement. Policy DP17 seeks to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. A new east-west pedestrian route is proposed underneath Centre Point linking the proposed new public square in the west with Earnshaw Street and providing a new link from Soho in the west to Princes Circus in the east. Provision of this route and the retention of a north-south route linking the proposed new public square to New Oxford Street are welcomed and in line with policy.

6.3.12 Given the location of the new east-west route at the end of Bucknall Street this may cause a highway safety issue unless measures are taken to protect pedestrians when crossing from the site over Earnshaw Street to Bucknall Street. The applicant has considered how pedestrian movements will be protected from vehicle movements with a pavement build out at this point or the provision of a new pedestrian crossing. If the proposed scheme were acceptable in all other respects a financial contribution would be secured via a S106 to provide crossing measures on Earnshaw Street. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.3.13 Parking There are 2 basement levels beneath the entire site which currently provide car parking, servicing and refuse areas and ancillary kitchen and storage areas for the upper floors. These basement levels were originally constructed with vehicular access from Charing Cross road and the provision of 140 car parking spaces. As the building has been remodelled over the years it now provides vehicular access from Earnshaw Street and 105 car parking spaces for the commercial floorspace (55 of which are regularly in use). The proposal is for 36 car parking spaces for the residential units, 11 of which will have electric vehicle charging points.

6.3.15 In line with Policy DP18 the Council will expect development to be car free in the Central London Area, areas within Controlled Parking Zones and sites which are highly accessible by public transport. Given the site’s location within Central London, adjacent to Tottenham Court Road Station and various bus routes and within a CPZ the scheme would be expected to be car free. The only exception would be if existing residential units had paces on site and the occupiers were to remain or return on completion of the works, which is not the case in this situation. The applicant has stated that any loss of car parking would reduce the viability of the scheme and would reduce the total ‘pot’ available for S106 items, but this is not sufficient justification to relax the car free policies. The proposed provision of 36 on site car parking spaces is therefore considered to be unacceptable and the proposal is recommended for refusal on this basis.

Hi Amanda I just noticed that the relocation of motorcycle parking spaces has mysteriously appeared on the revised floor plans. I would suggest treating motorcycle parking in the same way as car parking (i.e. the site should be car free and motorcycle free). – Steve our parking standards stat that “the Council welcomes provision of motorcycle parking as a substitute for car parking (other than parking for people with disabilities and space for service vehicles). Motorcycle parking may be provided within the space allowed by the maximum standards, at a guideline rate of 5 motorcycle spaces in place of each permitted car parking space”. So I’m not sure about including motorcycle parking in the reason for refusal.

6.3.16 Servicing A draft Servicing Management Plan (SMP) has been submitted which states that the existing servicing takes place via the ramp access from Earnshaw Street either at basement level or directly from the ramp and refuse collection takes place on street from Earnshaw Street. There is a total of 123 vehicular trips per day at the site. The proposal is for the relocation of this servicing access further north along Earnshaw Street by ??m (away from the existing residential entrance at Matilda Apartments) with the provision of a new ground floor loading bay area and a total of ??? trips per day. These proposed servicing arrangements are considered acceptable.

6.3.17 The proposal also includes the provision of a new lay by/drop off point on New Oxford Street close to the junction with Charing Cross Road. It is not clear of the function of this area except as a drop off/pick up area for the new residential units. This is considered unacceptable because?????? . The proposed provision of this new lay by/drop off point is therefore considered to be unacceptable and the proposal is recommended for refusal on this basis.

6.3.18 Construction The adjacent Crossrail/LUL works adjacent to the site at Tottenham Court Road station are due for completion in 2017?? and the current programme at the application site is for work to commence in early 2013 and finish in 2016. Given the overall scale of development, the Central London location and proximity of other construction projects information has been submitted in various documents assessing how the proposed works would be programmed and managed during the construction period. If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects a construction management plan which includes a section on construction traffic management would be secured via a S106. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.3.19 Trip generation There is an overall reduction in trips to and from the site (138 two way trips) with a change in the timings for the peaks; because of the change in the overall nature of occupants in the building the existing peaks occurs into the site in the morning and away from the site in the evening and this will be reversed.

6.3.20 Cyclists Policy DP17 requires development to sufficiently provide for the needs of cyclists, which includes cycle parking and states development must comply with Camden Parking standards which states that one storage or parking space is required per residential unit, however for larger residential units (3+ beds) two spaces are required. Therefore 154 spaces are required for the residential use. In relation to the commercial elements one space is required per 250sqm over 500 sqm with a further requirement for visitor spaces. Therefore 31 cycle spaces are required for the commercial use and 31 spaces for visitors.

6.3.21 The applicant has amended the scheme to provide included provision for 181 cycle parking spaces with Sheffield stands within the basement car park (150 spaces for the residential and 31 spaces for the retail staff) and 31 spaces within the public realm (location not identified). These spaces would normally be secured with conditions; one required further details of the stands in the public realm area for a minimum of 31 cycle storage/parking spaces designed to Council specifications and one for all cycle parking on site to be provided prior to occupation of the development.

6.3.17 Travel plans ????? 6.4 Design 6.4.1 Centre Point Tower Ground floor works These consist of relocating the existing external steps within the building to provide access to the mezzanine level. Originally the ground floor level below the tower was open and there was a ramp in this position to access the basement car park. Pedestrian access to the tower was via both of the external stairs to a reception area at mezzanine level. The ground floor has been subsequently enclosed in 2001 with pedestrian access now at ground floor level partly rendering the existing external stairs redundant.

6.4.2 The external steps form an important element of the building and provide evidential value of the fact that access to the building was original accessed from the mezzanine level. The relocation of the stairs does cause harm to the special interest of the listed building, however this harm would not be substantial and under the guidance of paragraph 134 of the NPPF “less than substantial harm” needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

6.4.3 In this case the scheme needs to be assessed against the emerging context around the site. Immediately to the west will be the entrance to the Crossrail station which is currently under construction. As part of these works there is already approval to relocate the existing western staircase closer to Centre Point (ref: 2009/4440/L). Given the position of the new station entrance the existing stair would create a narrow “pinch point” at the base of the building which would not be inviting to pedestrians.

6.4.4 On the eastern side it is also proposed to relocate the stairs internally as this will create a cleaner and much more attractive ground floor façade onto either the existing pavement or any future new public square. For both staircases there is a demonstrable public benefit to the works.

6.4.5 By relocating both stairs inside the building they would become the primary means of accessing the mezzanine level again (it is also the intention that the stairs would be reused so minimal fabric would be lost). As part of this scheme the proposals seek to open up the ground floor to better reveal this space. The external paving will be carried through at ground floor level to create the impression that this space was once external. Additionally full height glazing would allow views through the ground floor which would again reinforce the impression that this space was once open.

6.4.6 Through a combination of the public benefit and the reuse of the stairs as the main access point to the mezzanine (their original role) this element of the proposal is acceptable.

6.4.7 Partitioning associated with residential conversion The interior of the building has been inspected and there are few features of interest to be found. As this space was designed for a flexible office layout, each floor was built as one large space with service cores (stairs and lifts) at either end. Any partitioning was seen an insertion which could be altered as and when required. An inspection of the floor and ceiling structure revealed a simple reinforced concrete construction which is aesthetically unremarkable and not designed to be exposed. The sub-division of these spaces is in character with the original intention of this area being flexible in its use. Partitions have been carefully detailed so as to abut against the mullions of the windows rather than bisecting the opening.

6.4.8 Replacement windows It is proposed to replace all of the windows in the building largely like-for-like with double glazed units. The current windows are unremarkable and whilst they have clearly been constructed for the building they are a standard design from the time and are not particularly innovative

6.4.9 Centre Point Tower is an iconic building which is visible from long distances around London. However the windows play a secondary role in the composition of the tower façade with the concrete framing being dominant. From a distance the appearance of the finer detailing of the windows is lost with only the contrast between the solid (of the concrete) and void (of the windows) being apparent. Although the spandrels below the windows would be replaced with glazing the overall configuration of the framing would remain almost identical and it would not appreciably alter the appearance of the building.

6.4.10 34th floor Presently this level is used for services. It would be converted to a residential level and this would include the replacement of the louvers with full height glazed screens. These screens would be tinted to limit light spill and give a visual priority to the ‘Centre Point’ lettering at this level.

6.4.11 The Centre Point lettering is to be replaced to match the existing. Whilst the lettering is not original to the building it has become a recognised feature. There is no issue with the loss of historic fabric so this proposal is acceptable. The drawings do show a slight increase in the width of the lettering and it is considered that the lettering should only be replaced on a true like for like basis (i.e.: no increase in dimensions) so as to preserve the external appearance of the building. A condition is therefore recommended requiring the submission of the details of the lettering to be submitted.

6.4.12 Façade cleaning Mention is made on page 138 of the Design and Access Statement of the intention to clean the concrete. No objection is raised in principle although test samples and method statements would need to be submitted. This could be dealt with by condition.

6.4.13 Centre Point House and link bridge building Infill under link bridge One of the most significant alterations to the building is the proposal to partly infill the space under the bridge. This is possible as it is proposed to close the road running beneath it and create a public square in this space. The design has been carefully considered and will use full height glazing with minimal fixings to recreate the sense of openness under the bridge. The two distinctive supporting columns to the west are left exposed whilst the two the east would still be visible through the glazing. The ribbed soffit of the bridge will be left untouched.

6.4.14 On the corner of Earnshaw Street and New Oxford Street lies Bar 101. This is a self contained unit within Centre Point House which retains a number of original features such as tiling and stairs. These are to be retained although the façade would be replaced to match the adjoining infill under the bridge. Whilst this will result in the loss of a section of original glazing it does mean that a consistent ground floor frontage can be achieved. The existing glazed screens are not a particularly innovative design (in comparison to say the full height glazing on the link bridge) and its loss in considered acceptable in this instance where there are benefits which outweigh the harm.

6.4.15 Top floor of link bridge The top floor of the bridge is currently cellular office space and the proposal involves opening this space up. The partitioning is not of historic interest and its removal would open up the area to create a new, more usable area. The glazing would be replaced from the existing standard design to a higher quality frameless system.

6.4.16 Removal of internal floors Within Centre Point House two floor slabs would be removed to create double height spaces at ground floor level behind the brise soleil. Externally this will have no impact on the appearance of the building. Internally the spaces are not of interest and whilst fabric is lost this is only plain twentieth century concrete.

6.4.17 New public route Part of the consideration of the scheme is the public benefit created by the proposed route through Centre Point House. This would be in conjunction with the creation of public open space on Sutton Row in Westminster and create a welcoming legible route from Soho Square, through Centre Point and the proposed square, along Bucknall Street through to the east and Bloomsbury. Essentially the structure of the building is retained with only internal partitioning and non-original shopfronts lost. The significant public benefit outweighs any limited harm in terms of the loss of a small amount of historic fabric.

6.4.18 Shopfronts The existing shopfronts at ground floor level are an assortment of modern replacements with little overall cohesion. In their place would be inserted high quality, minimal framed glazed which would introduce a more uniform and attractive ground floor frontage.

6.4.19 Brise soleil On both the east and west elevations of Centre Point House there is a brise soleil which forms a distinctive pattern to both of the facades. A strongly defined concrete lattice frame features alternating recessed metal spandrel panels. Early designs for the building indicate that there would have been no spandrel panels and early photos suggest that the panels were painted a darker colour to reduce their impact. Their removal is considered acceptable as it does not appear that they were intended to be an integral feature of the building. 6.4.20 Residential façade The cladding to the upper floors is to be replaced. As existing this consists of cladding panels and windows. The panels themselves are not in themselves remarkable and being only 50 years old do not have the same value as fabric from much earlier listed buildings. Modern cladding materials such of these do not have the same life span as others such as brickwork or stone and are designed to be replaced eventually rather than being maintained continuously. Whilst the new cladding would not exactly replicate the existing its differences would be minimal and those features lost (such as the framing) are not integral to the building’s design, rather they were necessary at the time due to the technology available then. Details such as the hardwood rails will be reinstated.

6.4.21 Service ducts Vertical ducts are to be placed at each end of the building. On the southern end this simply extends the stair enclosure and has no appreciable impact in the building, however on the north elevation the glazed stair compartment would be completely covered over with a blank façade. The stair tower works well in breaking up the façade and providing visual interest. Its covering with the service ducts is considered acceptable given that relocating the duct on this elevation would involve the loss of the original staircase e.g.: placing the riser between the building and a glazed stair tower. However, the proposed blank and unrelieved façade could be improved and the architect should investigate ways of enlivening this elevation in a way that would complement the character of the existing building.

6.5 Amenity impacts 6.5.1 The closest residential units to the site are to the east on Earnshaw Street at Matilda Apartments (in the St Giles Central development) and to the south at York and Clifton Mansions on St Giles High Street. There are habitable room windows at Matilda Apartments facing the Earnshaw Street elevation of Centre Point House approximately 19m away and at York and Clifton Mansions angled away from the St Giles Street elevation of Centre Point House approximately 16m away at the closest point.

6.5.2 Daylight/sunlight The proposed bridge link extension is located at ground floor level, beneath an existing building and is not close to any existing or proposed residential units. There is therefore considered to be no impact on sunlight/daylight levels from this extension. The proposed extension to house the vertical ducts are located adjacent to the existing stair enclosures and are not considered to impact on any existing or proposed residential units in terms of daylight/sunlight levels.

6.5.3 Overlooking At Centre Point House there are no changes proposed to the residential accommodation in terms of use or location of windows. The lower floors of the building are already in a mixture of office, retail and restaurant use and the proposed changes to the uses at these levels along with changes to the size of units are not considered to have any overlooking impacts on existing residential units. 6.5.4 The proposed residential units in the Tower would be approximately 35m away from the existing residential units in Centre Point House and approximately 40m from the new office developments on Charing Cross Road. There are therefore not considered to be any overlooking issues from the proposed new residential units or the ancillary uses such as the pool and gym.

6.5.5 Use The site is within the Seven Dials Special Policy Area in the Camden’s Statement of Licensing Policy (2011). This is one of two areas in the borough where the number, type and density of premises selling alcohol for consumption on the premises is having a serious negative impact on the local community and local amenities. This area therefore has special licensing polices that apply.

6.5.6 In summary this policy applies when assessing any applications for new Premises Licences and Club Premises Certificates, applications to increase the capacity of licensed premises, applications to extend the hours during which licensable activities may take place in existing licensed premises, applications for Provisional Statements or variations that may otherwise have a negative impact on cumulative impact in the area (such as the addition of licensable activities that may change the character of the premises). Where representations are received for these applications, in almost all cases the applications will be refused.

6.5.7 The only exceptions to this policy are for small premises with a capacity of fifty persons or less who intend to operate during framework hours (alcohol licenses = Monday to Thursday 10am to 11.30pm, Friday and Saturday 10am to midnight, Sunday 11am to 10.30pm. other licenses = as before but 9am start every day), premises which are not alcohol led and operate only within framework hours or instances where the applicant has recently surrendered a licence for another premises of a similar size, providing similar licensable activities in the same Special Policy Area.

6.5.8 Noise Noise can have a major effect on amenity and health and therefore quality of life. Policy DP26 and DP28 seek to ensure that new development does not cause noise disturbance to future occupiers or neighbouring properties. It states that development will not be granted for development that is likely to generate noise pollution or development that is sensitive to noise in locations with noise pollution, unless appropriate attenuation measures are provided. It also states that the Council will seek to minimise the impact of noise from demolition and construction.

6.5.9 The Councils standard requirement is that that noise from operational plant is at least 5dB below the background noise level. Where it is anticipated that plant will have a noise that has a distinguishable, discrete continuous note and/or if there are distinct impulses then that plant should operate at least 10dB below the background noise level. Basement and sub basement plant rooms are proposed along with first floor plant rooms, small plant rooms adjacent to the lifts on all floors and an area to the roof within Centre Point tower and second floor plant rooms at Centre Point House. The exact plant specifications are unknown at this stage. A Noise and Vibration report has been provided and this states that the proposed plant will be designed to meet the Council’s noise standards of 5dBA below background levels. It is recommended that a condition be imposed on the permission requiring the submission of further details of all plant and equipment once selected to demonstrate that the standard noise condition can be complied with.

6.5.10 The application site is adjacent to busy main roads which have the potential to create noise which could cause disturbance to residents of the proposed development. The applicant has submitted a PPG24 a noise and vibration report which confirms that the site falls within noise category C where planning permission should not normally be granted but there may be instances where noise mitigation measures may make development acceptable. Measures to insulate the residential units against noise and vibration disturbance from external sources can be secured by condition.

6.6 Other matters – sustainability , CIL, basement extension, wind 6.6.1 Sustainability The overall approach to energy should be in line with the Mayor’s Energy Hierarchy (i) using less energy; ii) supplying energy efficiently; ii) using renewable energy. In line with the first element of the hierarchy Policy DP22 requires BREEAM assessments to meet a minimum very good rating and Code for Sustainable Homes level 3. Camden’s CPG also goes beyond these requiring a minimum 50% score in the energy, water and materials categories for the Code for Sustainable Homes and a minimum score of 60% in the energy, 60% in the water and 40% in the materials categories for the BREEAM assessment. In line with LDF and CPG requirements a Code for Sustainable Homes assessment has been submitted for the new residential units and this indicates that the level 4 score can be achieved as can the minimum scores in the energy, water and materials sub-categories. The applicant has also submitted a BREEAM retail pre assessment and this indicates that a minimum ‘very good’ rating can be achieved. Because the retail units are being built to shell and core level only the use of a green lease or green building guide is proposed between the applicant and the future tenants to demonstrate compliance with BREEAM at design and post construction stages. If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects a Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM post construction review would be secured via a S106 to ensure that these targets are achieved in the final design. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.6.2 With regard to the second element of the hierarchy the site is within 1km radius of an existing or emerging CHP network (University College London) and within 500m radius of a potential network (British Museum). In line with CPG2 the development should therefore be capable of connecting to these networks in the future. The applicant has confirmed that capped connections and space for heat exchanger interfaces will be provided to allow future connections to a local heat network. The applicant is also in discussion with the adjacent land owner regarding the potential to transfer and use waste heat between the two sites. If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects the CHP connection and continued discussion with the adjacent land owner would be secured via a S106 to ensure that these targets are achieved in the final design. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application. 6.6.3 With regard to the third element of the hierarchy there is a requirement for a 20% reduction in C02 through the use of on-site renewable technologies. The applicant has explored a range of renewable energy technologies (biomass, energy from waste, PV panels, solar water heating, wind turbines, ground source heat pump, and hydrogen fuel cell) does not propose the use of any renewable energy because of site constraints. The applicant does propose the use of a site wide air cooled condenser loop system, which will recover waste heat from the retail units being cooled will be used in the residential units when there is a heating demand. If the scheme was acceptable in all other respects the use of this air source heat pump would be secured via a S106. In the absence of such a legal agreement this forms a further reason for the refusal of the application.

6.6.4 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The proposal will be liable for the Mayor of London’s CIL as the additional floorspace exceeds 100sqm or one unit of residential accommodation. Based on the Mayor’s CIL charging schedule and the information given on the plans, the charge is likely to be £53,600 (1,072sqm x £50) (add conversion floorspace as well!! Approx 26,000 x £50 = approx £1,300,000. This will be collected by Camden after the scheme is implemented and could be subject to surcharges for failure to assume liability, for failure to submit a commencement notice and/or for late payment, and subject to indexation in line with the construction costs index. An informative would have been attached to any consent advising the applicant of this charge if the application were to be approved.

6.6.5 Basement The site is within an area susceptible to ground water flooding and slope stability issues and the proposal involves excavation to part of the sub basement level for the construction of the proposed car lifts and new piling and reinforced concrete walls in association with the construction of new stair wells. The applicant has therefore submitted a basement impact assessment in line with policy DP23 and DP27. The conclusion of the screening part of the report is that the site is located over Lynch Hill Gravels which are classified as forming part of a ‘Secondary A’ aquifer and that the sub basement extension will be below the ground water levels. The Report then goes on to provide more information with respect to these points and concludes that the aquifer is unlikely to be affected because of the significant thickness of London Clay overlying it. It is considered that the scheme complies with policies DP27 and DP23.

6.6.6 Wind The applicant has submitted a wind report which considers the impact of the development on the local wind microclimate. The baseline for the existing wind conditions shows that there are a range of areas around the buildings which are suitable for sitting, standing and leisure walking and no locations suitable only for business walking or roadways (which are the windiest conditions). The windiest locations (leisure walking) are to the south of the tower and in isolated locations on Earnshaw Street and New Oxford Street. The baseline in terms of ‘strong winds’ shows that wind speeds do not exceed Beaufort Force 6 (B6) and only reach B6 at six locations, which are again in similar locations (anything higher than 6 for a few hours a year is unlikely to cause a nuisance, anything in excess of 7 or 8 would impede walking). 6.6.7 The wind report shows that after the completion of the development there are five locations which are one category windier and nine locations which are one category calmer. With regard to ‘strong winds’ again the maximum speed is B6 and this is reached at five locations. The report concludes that there is one location adjacent to the proposed new entrance into the tower where a screen or landscaping may be required to minimise the wind impact.

6.6.8 The wind report also assesses a cumulative stage showing the completion of the development along with the potential redevelopment of the site to the south (St Giles/Consolidated site). In this instance the conclusion is that after completion of both developments there are the same five locations which are one category windier and the same nine locations which are one category calmer. With regard to ‘strong winds’ one location exceeds B7 and B6 and is reached at five locations. This windiest location is adjacent to the St Giles/Consolidated site and as it appears to be as a result of that development mitigation measures are not required as part of this application at Centre Point.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 *************************?????????????????*****************????????????????? ***********????????????????888888888

8. LEGAL COMMENTS

8.1 Members are referred to the note from the Legal Division at the start of the Agenda.

Load more

  41

Copy Link