planning report D&P/3648/01 20 October 2015 The Monico Site, Circus in the

planning application no. 15/07092/FULL

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

The proposal Full application for the demolition of existing buildings and demolition behind retained facades of 19 and 20 Denman Street facades; realignment of 4-6 Glasshouse Street, 1 Sherwood Street, 8 Glasshouse Street and 11-17 Shaftesbury Avenue facades; and retention of advertising screens. Construction of a replacement six storey building (plus 6th floor mezzanine office) with three basement levels to create a mixed use scheme comprising office (Class B1) at part ground to sixth storey mezzanine; retail (Class A1) at part basement one, part ground and part first floor; up to seven residential units (Class C3) at part first floor, part second floor and part third floor; and plant and cycle storage within the basement. Associated works including mechanical plant within roof enclosure and loading facilities.

The applicant The applicant is Land Securities Victoria Properties Ltd, the architect is Fletcher Priest, and the agent is Jones Lang LaSalle.

Strategic issues The proposed mixed use development on this inefficiently used site is strongly supported in strategic planning terms; however issues with respect to housing; affordable housing; urban design, inclusive design; transport; climate change and air quality should be addressed before the application is referred back to the Mayor at his decision making stage. Mixed use; retail and leisure; historic environment; and strategic views policies are also relevant to this application.

Recommendation That Westminster City Council be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not yet comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 74 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 9 September 2015, the Mayor of London received documents from Westminster Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor has until 20 October 2015 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Categories 1B(b) and 1C(c) of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 1B “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings (b) in Central London (other than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres.”  1C “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of (c) more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London”.

3 Once Westminster Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

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

5 The 0.34 hectare triangular-shaped site is bounded by Denman Street to the north; Shaftesbury Avenue to the south-east; and Sherwood Street/Glasshouse Street/Piccadilly Circus to the south and south-west. The site includes the entire block, apart from four buildings at the corner of Denman Street and Sherwood Street. The site is named after the Monico restaurant and hotel, which once fronted Shaftesbury Avenue within the site.

6 Most of the buildings on the site are identified as ‘buildings of merit’ in the and Chinatown Conservation Area, apart from the seven storey former National Westminster Bank building on the corner of Shaftesbury Avenue and Denman Street, and the adjacent four storey red brick 1970s block. The southern corner of the block includes the iconic advertising screens attached to the exterior of 1-17 Shaftesbury Avenue and 44-48 , fronting onto Piccadilly Circus. Much of the space behind the advertising screens is empty and undeveloped. Uses on the site are retail (A1-A5), a nightclub, office and residential.

7 The site is within the Soho and Chinatown Conservation Area, with the Regent Street Conservation Area to the south and west. It also neighbours a number of listed buildings, including the Grade II listed former County Fire Office to the south-west; the Grade II listed former Regent Palace Hotel to the west; the Grade II listed London Pavilion to the east; and the Grade II listed 20- 24 Shaftesbury Avenue to the north-east. The site also lies within the Protected Vista of strategic view panorama 4A.2 from Primrose Hill to the , a Landmark Viewing Corridor, as identified in the Mayor’s ‘London View Management Framework’ SPG (2012).

8 The site is within the Central Activities Zone.

page 2 9 The site has frontages onto Shaftesbury Avenue, Denman Street, Sherwood Street and Glasshouse Street. Of these, only Shaftesbury Avenue constitutes part of the Strategic Road Network, and the closest part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) lies some 940 metres eastwards, on Victoria Embankment (A3211) and 1,350 metres westward, at (A4202). Piccadilly London Underground Station lies immediately to the south-west of the site, with , , , Oxford Circus, Charing Cross and Stations all within walking distance. A wide range of bus services are also available, including those serving the eastbound bus stop which lies on the site’s southern frontage onto Shaftesbury Avenue. Consequently, the site has an excellent public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6a, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6(b) is the most accessible.

Details of the proposal

10 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing buildings, other than demolition behind retained facades of 19 and 20 Denman Street; retained and altered facades of 4-6 Glasshouse Street, 1 Sherwood Street, 8 Glasshouse Street and 11-17 Shaftesbury Avenue; and retention of the existing Piccadilly Circus advertising screens. A replacement building of up to six storeys (plus 6th floor mezzanine) will be constructed, with three basement levels, to create a mixed use scheme comprising office (Class B1) at part ground to sixth storey mezzanine; retail (Class A1) at part basement one, part ground and part first floor; seven residential units (Class C3) at part first floor, part second floor and part third floor; and plant and cycle storage within the basement. Outdoor terraces are included at sixth floor and mezzanine levels, with views towards Piccadilly Circus. Associated works include mechanical plant within the roof enclosure and loading facilities.

11 The Piccadilly Circus advertising screens will remain in operation during construction, as will the recently refurbished retail space below the screens at 44-48 Regent Street. Case history

12 On 5 June 2015, a pre-application meeting was held at City Hall for demolition and redevelopment for office, retail and residential uses, retaining and adjusting the facades of most historic buildings. The GLA’s pre-application advice report of 1 July 2015 concluded that the principle of a mixed use development to make better efficient use of this inefficiently used site was strongly supported; however the applicant was requested to ensure that the issues raised in the report with respect to housing; affordable housing; historic environment, urban design and strategic views; inclusive design; transport; and climate change should be fully addressed prior to the submission of any future planning application.

13 The proposal was also presented to the Mayor on 3 July 2015. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses London Plan; draft Central Activities Zone SPG  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; Town Centres SPG  Tourism/leisure London Plan  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy  Density London Plan; Housing SPG  Historic Environment London Plan

page 3  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG  Tall buildings/views London Plan, London View Management Framework SPG  Transport London Plan  Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  Crossrail London Plan; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Crossrail SPG  Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG  Climate change London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy

15 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the Westminster City Plan: Strategic Policies (2013); the saved policies in the Westminster Unitary Development Plan (2007, saved 2010); and the 2015 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).

16 The following are also relevant material considerations:

 The National Planning Policy Framework and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance.  The 2015 draft Minor Alterations to the London Plan. Principle of development

Office-led, mixed-use development

17 The site is within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the West End International Centre. Policy 2.10 ‘CAZ – Strategic Priorities’ of the London Plan seeks to enhance and promote London as one of the world’s most attractive competitive business locations within the CAZ. The proposed office, retail and leisure uses would contribute to the strategic functions of the CAZ and are supported in this location. Policy 4.5 ‘London’s Visitor Infrastructure’ and Map 4.2 identify the site as being within the West End Strategic Cultural Area, with the strategic aim to promote, enhance and protect the special characteristics of major clusters of visitor attractions. The advertising signs fronting onto Piccadilly Circus are a major visitor attraction and their protection and continued use throughout the construction works is strongly supported.

18 The scheme is a mixed use development comprising office, retail, leisure and residential on a currently inefficiently used site. The current site includes 3,553 sq.m. (GIA) of B1 office space and the proposal would deliver 14,479 sq. m. (GIA), an uplift of 10,926 sq.m. This represents a quantitative and qualitative improvement against existing provision and is welcomed in line with Policy 4.2 ‘Offices’ and CAZ Policies. Policy 4.3 ‘Mixed Use Development and Offices’ states that where development proposals increase office floorspace within the CAZ, they should include a mix of uses, including residential, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies within the London Plan, as discussed further below.

Retail and leisure

19 London Plan Policy 2.10 states that within the CAZ the Mayor will, and boroughs should, support and improve the retail offer for residents, workers and visitors, especially the West End as a global shopping destination. The current site includes 8,139 sq.m. (GIA) of retail space (A1-A5) and a 203 sq.m (GIA) nightclub; and the proposal would deliver 8,193 sq. m. (GIA) of A1-A3 retail space and 404 sq.m. of D1 leisure space, including the retained retail space at 44-48 Regent

page 4 Street. The scheme would result in a slight increase in retail and leisure floorspace, but of considerably better quality, including four small units along Denman Street, which is welcomed. This includes restaurant/cafe use, which will further support the role of the CAZ as a visitor destination. The continuing operation of much of the current retail space during construction is also welcomed. Policies 4.7 and 4.8 also provide support to retail development in this location, and Policy 4.9 provides support for small and independent retailers. Although it is understood that the current tenants are on leases that are coming to an end, the applicant is encouraged to assist smaller tenants to secure alternative premises.

20 London Plan Policy 4.6 offers support for arts and cultural facilities in major mixed use development. In line with this, the proposal also includes an element of leisure space at lower ground floor level, which is welcomed.

Housing and affordable housing

21 The site currently includes 1,201 sq.m. (GIA) of residential floorspace. Sanctuary Housing have a long leasehold of 21-24 Denman Street, containing 18 studio units that are below London Plan space standards, of north-facing single aspect, and with restricted access. It is understood that Sanctuary Housing have been vacating tenants to more suitable properties and only 8 units are now occupied. The neighbouring 19-20 Denman Street contains 7 studio/one-bed market residential units. In total, the site currently includes 1,201 sq.m. (GIA) of residential floorspace in 25 units, which will be replaced by 364 sq.m. of residential space in the form of 7 market units (4 studio, 3 one-bed), a reduction of 837 sq.m., although it is recognised that they will be of a considerably better quality.

22 Policy 3.14 ‘Existing Housing’ states that loss of housing, including affordable housing, should be resisted unless the housing is replaced at existing or higher densities, with at least equivalent floorspace and of better quality. The applicant has investigated the re-provision of all of the existing residential floorspace on-site; however it states that there are significant design limitations, including impacts on residential quality, as well as negative impacts on the viability of the commercial floorspace. Consequently, the applicant has investigated re-provision of the remaining floorspace, including affordable housing, within 0.5 miles of the site. The applicant’s Housing Strategy identifies 6 possible sites; however it finds that none of these sites can be delivered in line with the development programme; to the required policy and quality requirements; and within financial viability requirements. Consequently, the applicant is proposing to make a payment in lieu contribution towards Westminster City Council’s affordable housing fund, in recompense for the loss of 18 affordable units.

23 The loss of 18 affordable units with no re-provision is against London Plan policy and GLA officers are concerned that a financial payment provides no definite and timely delivery of replacement units. A viability assessment has been provided in order to calculate a payment in lieu contribution; however London Plan Policy 3.12 on affordable housing states that “a cash in lieu contribution should only be accepted where this would have demonstrable benefits in furthering the affordable housing and other policies in this Plan and should be ring-fenced and, if appropriate, pooled to secure additional affordable housing either on identified sites elsewhere or as part of an agreed programme for provision of affordable housing”. The applicant should work with the Council to identify clear and timely re-provision, either on-site or on an alternative site, and a cash in lieu payment will only be acceptable should it be demonstrated that exceptional circumstances will not allow this.

24 As stated above, Policy 4.3 requires that where proposals increase office floorspace within the CAZ, they should include a mix of uses, including residential, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies within the London Plan. The proposals include an uplift in office floorspace of 10,926 sq.m. and clearly comprise a broad mix of uses, including

page 5 364 sq.m. of residential space, although it is noted that this represents a reduction of 837 sq.m. on that existing. Westminster City Council requires that where proposals increase the amount of commercial floorspace by 200 sq.m. or more, the provision of an equivalent amount of residential floorspace is required. In reflection of concerns about the loss of office space to residential, and as promoted by the Mayor’s Draft CAZ SPG, the Council has published a Draft Mixed Use Revision to Westminster’s City Plan Strategic Policies, which requires increases in floorspace of more than 50% to be accompanied by an equivalent amount of residential floorspace, under a cascade mechanism, either on-site, off-site, or by payment in lieu. The applicant has not proposed a residential contribution in response to this policy and clarification on this should be provided, in discussion with the Council. Any residential units proposed either on or off-site to address the requirements of Policy 4.3 should be subject to London Plan policies on affordable housing and the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be provided. The Council should provide its independent viability advice in respect of any requirements in relation to the uplift in office space, prior to the Stage Two referral.

Historic environment

Historic environment – designated heritage assets

25 London Plan Policy 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’ states that development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets where appropriate. The proposal will have an impact on designated heritage assets, including the Grade I Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain; the Grade II* listed Criterion Theatre and Restaurant; the Grade II listed London Pavilion, 20-24 Shaftesbury Avenue, the Quadrant, the County Fire Office, and the former Regent Palace Hotel; the Soho Conservation Area within which it is sited; and the Regent Street Conservation Area to the south and west. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the tests for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” and in relation to conservation areas, special attention must be paid to “the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

26 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance is the value of the heritage asset because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic, and may derive from a heritage asset’s physical presence or its setting. Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm’ to or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Recent judgements have provided detailed consideration of the duty imposed on local planning authorities. The Court of Appeal in Barnwell Manor held that a finding of harm to a listed building or its setting is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give considerable weight, and that there should be a strong presumption against granting permission that would harm the character or appearance of a conservation area.

27 The applicant has provided a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Assessment (THVA), with 16 fully rendered local townscape views. The THVA also contains an assessment of the significance of the Conservation Areas and statutorily listed buildings around the site, which GLA officers consider to be appropriate. GLA officers consider that the impact on designated heritage assets and their settings will be largely neutral, with some positive impacts, including

page 6 the removal of 19-23 Shaftesbury Avenue (by Powell & Moya of 1979-82) and the attached 1970’s red-brick building on Denman Street, which are considered to have a poor townscape value. Also, the setting back of the building on the corner of Shaftesbury Avenue and Denman Street, which opens up views of the neighbouring St. James’s Tavern, a building of merit in the Soho Conservation Area. The demolition of 2-4 Sherwood Street (discussed in more detail below), identified as a ‘building of merit’ in the Conservation Area, is regrettable and will cause some harm to the Soho Conservation Area; however having considered the application materials, GLA officers conclude that this harm is ‘less than substantial’, and outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, including the high design quality of the scheme, the provision of high quality new commercial space, much improved public realm, new housing, and heritage benefits arising from the removal of unsightly buildings as discussed above. In coming to this conclusion, GLA officers have taken account of the strong presumption against granting permission that would harm the character or appearance of a conservation area. As discussed under ‘urban design’ below, the proposed replacement building for 2-4 Sherwood Street, has the potential to be of high quality, although the colour and design of the ceramic tiles should be carefully considered during detailed design.

28 The massing of the proposed roof structure to the north-west of the site will be prominent in views south from Sherwood Street and east from Glasshouse Street, and detailed design should ensure that this is carefully detailed to avoid an overbearing and muddled effect, which could detract from the established scale and character of the Soho Conservation Area and the neighbouring Regent Street Conservation Area.

29 The proposals are not considered by GLA officers to cause any harm to neighbouring listed buildings or their settings, and the removal of unsightly buildings are expected to have positive impacts.

Historic environment – non-designated heritage assets

30 London Plan Policy 7.8 also applies to non-designated heritage assets. Within the site, 1-17 Shaftesbury Avenue, 4-6 Glasshouse Street, 1 Sherwood Street/8 Glasshouse Street, 2-4 Sherwood Street, and 19-20 Denman Street are identified as ‘buildings of merit’ in the Conservation Area, which are non-designated heritage assets. Neighbouring buildings of merit outside of the site include 5-6 Sherwood Street, 17 Denman Street, the Piccadilly Theatre, 12- 14 Denman Street, and 1-4 Denman Street. The NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application, and a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

31 The applicant’s THVA contains an assessment of the significance of the buildings of merit within the site, concluding that the buildings are generally of low or moderate significance. Although GLA officers consider the buildings to be of greater significance than that identified, it is accepted that most of this derives from the facades of the buildings, which have otherwise been much altered both internally and externally. The facades of all of the buildings of merit (apart from 2-4 Sherwood Street) will be retained, with some acceptable adaptation in order to align the floorplates of the proposed office space. GLA officers consider this (other than 2-4 Sherwood Street) to be ‘less than substantial harm’ and the public benefits stated above are considered to outweigh this.

32 The proposal includes the demolition of the facade 2-4 Sherwood Street, an Arts and Crafts style building dates from 1905, with a white faience facade, made up of triple triangular gables with green terracotta railings in front, and two shallow curved bows, although the ground

page 7 floor is modern. It also includes the single red brick bay of 2 Sherwood with a neo-baroque gable. GLA officers consider it to have some architectural and historical significance.

33 In response to concerns raised at pre-application stage, the architect has explored a number of options to retain the facade, including stretching it to align with the proposed office floorplates, and setting back the floorplate from the retained facade. The applicant states that the degree of stretching that the facade would require is inappropriate, and that the setting back of the floorplates would result in compromised views both into and out of the building. Consequently, the application proposes to demolish the existing building in its entirety, and although the loss of this building is disappointing, it is recognised that the proposal as a whole retains all other facades of the buildings of merit. Furthermore, as stated above, the public benefits, including heritage benefits, are considered to be substantial. Consequently, the loss of this building is considered to be acceptable.

Urban design

34 The proposals have been subject to pre-application discussions with Westminster City Council and the GLA. GLA officers are supportive of the layout principles underpinning the scheme, and the intention to maximise active frontage to all edges of the site is strongly supported. The enlargement of the existing service yard and the lining of its northern edge with commercial units along Denman Street is supported, as this minimises the amount of servicing frontage, while providing the opportunity to improve on the quality of public realm and encourage street based activity along Denman Street.

35 The applicant is proposing to modify the agreed public highway improvements to Denman Street, which will be implemented in co-ordination with the proposed Monico site development. The principle of linking into the recent public realm improvements along Glasshouse Street and Sherwood Street, and extending a shared space approach along Denman Street, is welcomed. This will provide a consistently high quality pedestrian environment and promote Denman Street as a link that bypasses the pedestrian congestion at Piccadilly Circus. This will be subject to further consultation with Westminster City Council. The setting back of the proposed building at the corner of Shaftesbury Avenue and Denman Street will improve pedestrian movement on this congested corner and is supported. The proposal to mark the historic ‘Rainbow Corner’ in the public realm is also supported. The existing arcaded passage on Shaftesbury Avenue is subject to antisocial behaviour and clutter associated with neighbouring retail units; however it also alleviates pedestrian congestion on the relatively narrow neighbouring footway. Its removal raises concerns about pedestrian congestion, as discussed under ‘transport’ below.

36 Internal arrangements are generally well considered within the established constraints of the retained retail units and the requirement to keep the advertising signage in operation throughout the construction period.

37 The height of new elements is generally consistent with the scale of recent development neighbouring the site, or lower, respecting strategic views, heritage assets, and the local context. The use of setbacks at upper levels further reduces the impact of the proposal, while allowing the introduction of amenity space for the office space, which is supported. The architectural strategy of introducing a continuous ceramic cladding material that links together the proposed facade of 2-4 Sherwood Street, the roof covering over the block, and the ‘Rainbow Corner’, is supported, as this will distinguish the new and retained elements, while giving the potential to relate to the local context, which includes ceramic elevations in both historic and contemporary buildings. The ceramic tile cladding is at an early stage of design development, although it is proposed to vary in size, shape and colour across elevations and the roof, as well as being three-

page 8 dimensional at upper levels. The applicant states that the primary blue-grey colour has been chosen to complement surrounding buildings; however this is not entirely convincing, particularly for the replacement of 2-4 Sherwood Street. Detailed design, to be secured by the Council, will need to ensure an appropriate high quality design and colour to the ceramic tiles, in order to complement and enhance the neighbouring heritage assets.

38 The intention to re-establish the significance of the ‘Rainbow Corner’, by bringing the ceramic tile roofing down to the ground, will introduce a distinctive architectural intervention in the context of the vibrant theatre frontages along Shaftesbury Avenue. This is supported and has the potential to result in a striking organic form; however the detailed design of this element will be critical in achieving the highest possible standards of architecture in this important location. The proposal to involve an artist in the detailed design of the ceramic cladding on this corner is supported; however any design should ensure that the ceramic clad elements are fully integrated into the wider facades, rather than an ‘add-on’ element

Strategic views

39 The proposed building will sit within the Protected Vista of strategic view panorama 4A.2 from Primrose Hill to the Palace of Westminster, a Landmark Viewing Corridor, as identified in the Mayor’s ‘London View Management Framework’ SPG (2012). Policy 7.12 ‘Implementing the London View Management Framework’ states that development in the foreground and middle ground of a designated view should not be overly intrusive, unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view. Policy 7.12 also states that where there is a Protected Vista, development that exceeds the threshold height of a Landmark Viewing Corridor should be refused. Paragraph 46 of the LVMF SPG also states that where existing buildings in a Landmark Viewing Corridor are demolished, any replacement building should be designed so that no part of the building envelope or element fixed to its structure exceeds the threshold plane, and that a proposals that is ‘hidden’ behind an existing building is not exempt from this requirement.

40 The applicant has produced a Townscape, Heritage and Visual Assessment (THVA), including a verified view of the proposal from this position, as well as various other key locations within Westminster and in neighbouring boroughs, as agreed with the Council. The Design and Access Statement also includes a more detailed analysis of the view. This shows that the existing buildings on the site do not exceed the threshold height of the Protected Vista, and although the proposed building will exceed the threshold height, the THVA demonstrates that it will not have any impact due to shielding of other buildings in the foreground and background. The building will be partially hidden behind the greater height of the existing Grade II listed 164-182 and the under-construction Quadrant 4 scheme (PDU/3103/01); and the Grade II and II* listed 24-36 Regent Street and 218-223 Piccadilly, the under-construction St. James’ Market scheme, and the Grade II listed New Zealand House exceed the threshold height in the background of the proposal. Since these buildings are either listed or recently consented and under construction, they are unlikely to be demolished in the foreseeable future. It is also noted that the applications for the Quadrant 4 proposal (PDU/3103/01) and the St. James’ Market proposal (PDU/2931/01), both of which are of greater height, considered that the impact of those proposals on the strategic view would be minimal and would not have any detrimental impact on the ability of viewers to appreciate the Palace of Westminster.

41 In summary, the analysis shows that the proposal technically breaches the threshold height of the Protected Vista, which is contrary to Policy 7.12; however, GLA officers consider that the impact on the Protected Vista would be minimal and would not have any detrimental impact on the ability of viewers to appreciate the Palace of Westminster.

page 9 Inclusive design

42 The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 ‘An Inclusive Environment’ is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum.

43 The applicant has engaged an access consultant, which is welcomed, and a full access statement has been provided, demonstrating that the proposals generally reflect the principles of inclusive design. It is accepted that the inclusion of residential units in the retained historic buildings on Denman Street does not allow full access and no wheelchair accessible units are included. Although not reflected in the access statement, the sixth floor mezzanine is only accessible by a platform lift. This does not provide equality of access and should be reconsidered.

Transport

44 The proposed development would be car free, which is supported. Adequate levels of Blue Badge Spaces are available for use within local public car parks.

45 A total of 200 long stay cycle parking spaces are proposed; however the development does not include any short stay cycle parking, which is contrary to London Plan Policy 6.13 ‘Parking’, although the applicant’s transport assessment proposes that “short-stay cycle parking might form part of a package of planning obligations subject to viability”. In order to overcome this deficiency, the applicant is required to demonstrate that adequate section 106 mitigation will be delivered in the form of a specific obligation and associated funding, to be set out within the Council’s committee report and section 106 heads of terms, to be reported to the Mayor at Stage Two.

46 Trip generation has been carried out using TRICS & TRAVL sites and census data, and also incorporates committed cumulative development impact within the local area. Given the level of additional trips forecast in those modes, and the number of series available from this highly accessible location, no mitigation in regard to London Underground or bus services is considered to be required.

47 In order to provide additional capacity at local stations, the increased demand for Cycle Hire usage, combined with the high level of demand for existing local hire stations, will require mitigation in the form of a section 106 contribution. Confirmation of the level of contribution required will be provided by TfL. This impact, and therefore the necessity of a contribution, would clearly be exacerbated if no firm mechanism in regard to local short stay cycle parking provision is secured.

48 London Underground (LUL) tunnels lie in close proximity to the site. The applicant has begun liaison with LUL with regard to potential ground movement impact. In the event that conditions regarding foundation construction methodology are required, these will be provided to the City Council.

49 The development would involve replacing the arcaded passage space (which is adopted public highway) on the Shaftesbury Road frontage with a solid front building line, and would thus reduce the amount of public realm available to pedestrians. Consent (now expired) was previously granted for only a partial infill of this area. In order to mitigate this loss of footway space, it is proposed to narrow the carriageway on Shaftesbury Avenue, including one or more pedestrian crossing islands, in order to move the kerb outwards marginally. It has not yet been confirmed that Westminster City Council are supportive of these works, and should widening works be supported, there remain concerns that the development would impact adversely upon

page 10 pedestrian environment, and lead to further conflict between bus users waiting at the bus stop on the Shaftesbury Road frontage, and passing pedestrians. TfL does not support the reduction of the bus waiting cage, nor of the temporary or permanent removal of the bus shelter / stop currently proposed. Both functions are considered to be of high importance in this location, and any approved development should not impact negatively upon either of those functions. The analysis of existing and potential pedestrian comfort levels provided by the applicant is considered to be flawed and incomplete, and does not accurately represent either the actual situation, or the harm that would arise. This exercise should be comprehensively reviewed and re-provided to TfL, prior to determination. Therefore the proposed effective infilling of building footprint in this location cannot be supported on the basis of the information provided to date, as it would be contrary to London Plan Policies 6.3, 6.7 and 6.10.

50 In the event that relocation/replacement of the bus stop infrastructure (on the site’s Shaftesbury Avenue frontage) can be agreed, the work arising would need to be undertaken at the applicant’s cost, and secured by section 106/section 278 agreement.

51 On-site servicing facilities are proposed, with residential refuse to be collected from the highway. The applicant should clearly set out the management of residential refuse collection within the detailed delivery and servicing management plan, to avoid any unnecessary obstruction of the public thoroughfare.

52 A detailed delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and a construction logistics plan (CLP), in line with TfL guidance, should be secured by section 106 agreement or condition. The CLP should be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of development, and the DSP prior to first occupation (where this excludes temporary servicing arrangements for retained retail floorspace). A greater degree of detail than usual will be necessary to address the impact of the retained retail floorspace on the site during redevelopment.

53 The framework construction management plan indicates that a temporary construction pit lane is sought on Shaftesbury Avenue, requiring the closure of the existing bus stop, with the subsequent impact of loss of road space to traffic using the Piccadilly junction. No information has been presented in regard to how that facility could be adequately accommodated in the locality, and as such this cannot be supported. The construction route information provided in support of the application also demonstrates that no construction traffic would pass along Shaftesbury Avenue, so the need for and purpose of this temporary construction pit lane is unclear. Further discussion with TfL is required in order to identify how development could proceed without resulting in a significant disruption to bus services along Shaftesbury Avenue.

54 A framework travel plan has been provided as an appendix to the transport assessment. In order to realise the goals set out in the framework plan, a detailed travel plan should be secured, funded and monitored through the section 106 agreement.

Community Infrastructure Levy

55 In accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3, the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect on 1st April 2012. All new developments that create 100 sq.m. or more of additional floor space are liable to pay the Mayoral CIL. The levy is charged at £50 per square metre of additional floor space in the City of Westminster.

56 The site is also in the area where section 106 contributions for Crossrail will be sought in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.5 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’. The required contribution should be

page 11 confirmed by the City Council and included in the section 106 heads of terms when the application is reported back to the Mayor at Stage Two.

Climate change

Energy

57 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include low energy lighting and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.

58 The applicant is proposing comfort cooling; however, no information has been provided to demonstrate that it is required to mitigate the risk of overheating. The applicant should, therefore, provide evidence of how Policy 5.9 has been addressed, for each building use, to avoid overheating and minimise cooling demand. Dynamic overheating modelling in line with CIBSE Guidance TM52 and TM49 is recommended. If it is shown that comfort cooling is not required, the applicant should consider omitting the air conditioning in order to maximise the carbon savings. The applicant should review Section 11 ‘Cooling and overheating’ of the GLA guidance on energy assessments and provide all of the required information.

59 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 83 tonnes per annum (19%) in regulated CO2 emissions under the first step of the energy hierarchy (Be Lean’), compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development. Sample SAP full calculation worksheets (both DER and TER sheets) and BRUKL sheets, including efficiency measures alone, should be provided to support the savings claimed.

60 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant has, however, provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available.

61 A site heat network is proposed; however the applicant should confirm that all apartments and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network and a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided. The applicant should provide a layout drawing of the energy centre, including its floor area and location, detailing all plant proposed, including SCR, and provision made for a future connection.

62 The applicant is proposing to install a CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. The proposed fuel is biodiesel, which is considered renewable under the energy hierarchy, and the savings will therefore be considered in the ‘Be Green’ element of the hierarchy.

63 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install a biodiesel 108kWth CHP. The applicant has provided the running hours of a gas fired 79kWth CHP at 3,400 hours, which is considered low. The proposed biodiesel CHP thermal output is considerably higher and so the running hours will be further reduced. The applicant has stated that the larger CHP has been selected as it is the ‘best available size for the development’; however the anticipated running hours suggest that the system is too large for the proposed development. The applicant should therefore review the

page 12 size of the CHP in order to ensure the running time of the CHP is maximised. The applicant should provide further information on how the CHP will operate during periods of low demand, including information on how the small residential loads will be met at periods of low demand, for instance at weekends when the office is unlikely to be occupied.

64 The applicant has provided information on the biodiesel system, including capital cost and fuel type (recycled cooking oil). However, the applicant should review Appendix 3 of the GLA energy assessment guidance for the additional information required applications proposing biofuel technology, including written confirmation from the potential supplier that the fuel can be supplied to the development, as well as the carbon intensity of the fuel.

65 Given the relatively low running hours, the CHP, and that biofuel is typically more expensive than gas, the applicant should also provide information on the commercial operation of the proposed system, including anticipated costs and how any sales of power will be managed, in order to demonstrate that the system will be economically viable.

66 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 148 tonnes per annum (33%) will be achieved through this third element (‘Be Green’) of the energy hierarchy.

67 Based on the energy assessment submitted, a reduction of 148 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions is expected, compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 52%. The carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan; however, the comments above should be addressed before compliance with London Plan energy policy can be verified.

Climate change adaptation

68 Whilst the site itself is not at surface water flood risk, other locations in close proximity to the site are. Therefore the application of London Plan Policy 5:13 ‘Sustainable Drainage’ is an important consideration for this proposal.

69 The applicant’s Environmental Performance Statement states that drainage will be determined at the detailed planning stage but that the proposals will accommodate all drainage, up to the 1 in 100 year plus climate change storm event, on site. Given the nature and location of the site, the approach taken to drainage is acceptable and in accordance with London Plan policy 5.13 and should be secured via an appropriate planning condition.

Air quality

70 The site lies within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and as the proposal includes a biomass boiler the applicant should provide an Air Quality Assessment, as required by London Plan Policy 7.14 ‘Improving Air Quality’. This should include assessment of the scheme against the requirement for proposals to be ‘air quality neutral’, as calculations based on the available information suggest that this may not be the case. The assessment should also include dispersion modelling to determine the significance of impacts from CHP emissions on existing sensitive receptors and to determine an appropriate ventilation strategy to reduce exposure to pollution in the proposed residential properties. If the development is not air quality neutral, and/or significant impacts on air quality are determined, further mitigation to reduce emissions should be provided by the applicant.

page 13 Local planning authority’s position

71 Westminster City Council’s view is not yet known, although the applicant has engaged with both officers and members during the pre-application process. Legal considerations

72 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

73 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

74 London Plan policies on mixed use; retail and leisure; housing; affordable housing; historic environment, urban design and strategic views; inclusive design; transport; and climate change are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Mixed use development: The proposed mixed use development on this currently inefficiently used site is strongly supported. The continuing operation of the advertising signage during construction is also supported.  Retail and leisure: The proposed improved quality retail and leisure space is supported, and the continuing operation of the recently refurbished retail space during construction is also supported. The applicant is encouraged to assist smaller tenants to secure alternative premises.  Housing and affordable housing: The re-provision of better quality housing on the site is welcomed; however the proposal involves the loss of the existing affordable housing with no re-provision, which is against London Plan policy. The applicant should therefore work with the Council to identify clear and timely re-provision, either on-site or on an alternative site. The applicant should provide clarification on its response to the policy requirement for housing in response to an uplift in office floorspace. The Council should provide its independent viability advice in respect of any requirements in relation to the uplift in office space, prior to the Stage Two referral.  Historic environment: The impact on designated heritage assets is considered to be largely neutral, with some positive impacts; however, the demolition of 2-4 Sherwood Street will cause ‘less than substantial’ harm to the Soho Conservation Area, although this will be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Although the loss of non- designated heritage asset is disappointing, it is recognised that the proposal as a whole retains all other facades of the buildings of merit, and its loss is outweighed by the public benefits arising from the scheme.

page 14  Urban design: The layout, massing and design of the proposals are generally supported; however the removal of the arcaded passage raises concerns about pedestrian congestion. Detailed design should carefully consider the colour and design of the proposed ceramic tiles for the replacement 2-4 Sherwood Street; the massing and detailing of the proposed roof structure to the north-west of the site; and the design of the ‘Rainbow Corner’.  Strategic views: Although the proposal technically breaches the threshold height of the Protected Vista of strategic view panorama 4A.2, which is contrary to Policy 7.12; however, the impact would be minimal and would not have any detrimental impact on the ability of viewers to appreciate the Palace of Westminster.  Inclusive design: The proposals generally reflect the principles of inclusive design. It is accepted that the inclusion of residential units in the retained historic buildings on Denman Street does not allow full access and no wheelchair accessible units are included. The inclusion of a platform lift does not provide equality of access and should be reconsidered.  Transport: Section 106 mitigation will be required in relation to the absence of short stay cycle parking and the increased demand for Cycle Hire usage. The loss of the existing arcaded passage space cannot be supported on the basis of the information provided to date, and the analysis of existing and potential pedestrian comfort levels should be comprehensively reviewed and re-provided to TfL. A detailed delivery and servicing plan, construction logistics plan, and detailed travel plan should be secured by section 106 agreement or condition. Further discussion with TfL is required concerning the temporary construction pit lane on Shaftesbury Avenue.  Climate Change: The applicant should provide further information to demonstrate how the building has been designed to avoid overheating and minimise cooling demand; provide sample SAP full calculation worksheets and BRUKL sheets; provide a drawing of the route of the heat network and a layout drawing of the energy centre; provide further information on the CHP; and provide further information on the biofuel technology proposed.  Air quality: The site lies within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and as the proposal includes a biomass boiler the applicant should provide an Air Quality Assessment, as required by London Plan Policy 7.14 ‘Improving Air Quality’.

75 On balance, while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, the application does not yet comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out above; however the possible remedies set out above could address these deficiencies.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Development & Projects 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development & Projects) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Martin Jones, Case Officer 020 7983 6567 email [email protected]

page 15