Land at Brill Place / Midland Road, Euston

planning report PDU/2381/02 12 January 2011 Land at Brill Place / Midland Road, Euston

in the London Borough of Camden planning application no. 2010/4721/P

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

The proposal Development of a biomedical research centre including laboratory and research space, lecturing and teaching space, exhibition space and a community facility; landscaped public open spaces; a new pedestrian route between Midland Road and Ossulston Street; a service entrance off Brill Place and a relocated vehicular access from Midland Road to serve the British Library. The applicant The applicant is the UKCMRI Consortium, consisting of Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council (MRC), and University College London (UCL). The architects are HOK and PLP.

Strategic issues The proposal for a world class medical research institution is welcomed in strategic terms, it accords with London Plan policies on innovation, employment, health and education. The mix of uses is acceptable, and the applicant has agreed with the Council an appropriate contribution to the improvement of local housing. The design of the building and wider public realm is of a high quality. The BREEAM excellent aspiration is welcomed, as is the contribution to the delivery of a district energy network. The proposal will have an acceptable impact on public transport, cycling, and highways, and assurance has been provided that the scheme will have no detrimental impact on the operation of the transport network.

The Councils decision

In this instance Camden Council has resolved to agree a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within a specified date. Recommendation That Camden Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

page 1 1 On 16 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1B: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats), which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings (c) outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.

1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is met (c) the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.

2 On 20 October 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2381/01, and subsequently advised Camden Council that the application complied with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 77 of the above-mentioned report, but asked that account be taken of the comments made in paragraph 78 of the report.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 16 December 2010, Camden Council agreed a dual recommendation resolving to grant permission but giving delegated authority for officers to refuse permission if the Section 106 agreement is not signed within the timescale set out in the Planning Performance Agreement for the application, and on 6 January 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Camden Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Camden Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 19 January 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLAs website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

6 At the consultation stage Camden Council was advised that the application complied with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 77 of the above-mentioned report, but asked that account be taken of the comments made in paragraph 78 of the report, particularly with regards to urban design, sustainable development and transport. The applicant has subsequently provided further information on these matters. Addressing each of these points in turn, the following is noted:

Urban Design and inclusive design

page 2 7 The stage 1 consultation response asked the applicant to refine the approach to the external appearance of the northern elevation to Brill Place, to ensure a beneficial and positive visual impact for the residential communities to the north of the site. The applicant has since proposed amendments to both the north and south elevations involving the application of terracotta fins to the vertical window mullions on both elevations. These will provide greater sophistication and refinement to the façade, and a stronger aesthetic connection between the base of the building and the bay windows of those elevations. These refinements will be secured by condition, and therefore the proposed amendments to the design successfully address the design concerns raised at stage 1.

8 The applicant has also continued to refine the landscape design and the design to the main entrance in response to comments from CABE, creating a stronger distinction between staff and public entrances and improving the navigation around the site. While these changes are welcomed it has however, necessitated a stepped and ramped approach for staff at this entrance in order to segregate and manage the high level of security needed between the staff and visitor areas. The current plans show a narrow external ramp alongside a very wide staircase to the staff entrance. A more accessible design could be achieved by making the ramp much wider. The Council has proposed a condition which requires further details of this area including the design of the entrance doors, which is welcomed as this will provide the opportunity to achieve a more inclusive solution.

9 This level change also creates challenges to providing inclusive access within the building but the details relating to the internal layout of the building, including staff and visitor access to and within the lecture theatre will appropriately be dealt with by Camden at detailed design stage.

10 Blue badge parking provision is to be made on street as there is no opportunity for on site parking bays. This provision should be monitored to ensure that any disabled staff and visitors are able to park in the vicinity of the building.

Sustainable Development 11 At stage 1, the Council was advised that the applicant should aim to improve energy efficiency and reduce regulated carbon emissions beyond the level proposed; provide further information to demonstrate that provision for future connection to a district energy network is actively being made; provide further evidence to demonstrate that the applicant is actively committed to helping to implement the wider energy strategy for the area.

12 The applicant has proposed changes that will increase the projected energy efficiency savings from 10% compared to 2006 Building Regulations in the original proposal to 33% in the revised proposal, which is welcomed.

13 The applicant has also identified space for connection points for importing heat from a future district heating network, and to allow for future connection of an electrical supply from the external CHP serving the district network. The s106 agreement secures a contribution of up to £3.8million for the provision of a future District Energy Centre, which satisfactorily cements the applicants role in the Euston Road district energy scheme. The applicant has therefore fully addressed the issues raised with regards to sustainable development.

Transport 14 At the consultation stage TfL raised a number of concerns with the proposed development relating to: Legible London provision; the relocation of the British Library Access and impact on bus stands; the Travel Plan; and the security issues and the associated potential impact on the operation of the transport network. Subsequently, discussions took place between the applicant and TfL in order to resolve the outstanding transport issues.

page 3 15 TfL requested that Legible London Wayfinding boards be provided, the location and scope to be agreed between TfL and the Council, to further encourage and assist pedestrian movements. These measures and their funding will be secured within the detailed Section 106 agreement as part of the highways works directly adjacent to the site and within the vicinity of the site through the moneys secured for the public realm improvements.

16 Discussions took place in respect of the relocation of the British Library access on Midland Road and it was agreed by London Buses that the required modifications to the bus stands would be acceptable, and that this would be dealt with in the separate application. The proposed reconfiguration of the two pedestrian crossings into a single crossing directly outside the entrance to St Pancras Station is also supported.

17 Additional information was provided in relation to the Travel Plan which was considered to be acceptable.

18 The potential risks for the proposed Biomedical Research Centre to result in protest activity by animal rights activists was identified by TfL. Concerns were raised that demonstrations may lead to a detrimental impact on the operation of public transport services and the highway network. However, assurances from the Metropolitan Police that the protests could be successfully policed were received. On this basis, TfL accept that the potential protest activity is unlikely to result in a significant risk to the operations of the transport network.

19 Overall, TfL is satisfied that the issues raised at the consultation stage have been dealt with and considers that, following assurances from the Metropolitan Police, the security issues are not such that the proposals would have an unacceptable risk of impacting the transport network.

Other comments

Land use designation

20 The stage 1 report noted that the site sits just outside of the Central Activity Zone, although it is important to note that the London Plan strategic land use designations are not accompanied by detailed maps, rendering it impossible to set out the exact CAZ boundary.

21 The London Plan sets out that the exact boundary of CAZ should be established by the local Council in their planning policy documents, and in this case, the Council has identified the site as being within the CAZ in both its UDP and Local Development Framework documents. This designation is in general conformity with the London Plan. As the uses proposed on this site are fully consistent with London Plan policies relating to the CAZ, the proposal remains fully compliant with the London Plan and is strongly supported in policy terms.

Section 106 contributions

22 At stage 1 the Mayor also noted that the applicant should agree with the Council an appropriate contribution towards local housing. The applicant and Council have since agreed an extensive package of Section 106 contributions which appropriately reflect the both Councils priorities and the applicants key missions around research, health and education. The overall package is valued at £10million comprised of financial contribution of some £6.6m and on-site/in kind benefits value at around £3m.

23 In kind contributions comprise an on-site community health facility, on-site teaching resources, a volunteering scheme for science teaching and the east west route. Financial contributions include £55k for apprenticeships, local employment and training, £524k for public realm and open space, £490k for safer neighbourhood officers, CCTV and other security enhancements, transport, and as noted above, contribution of £3.8m for the delivery of a district energy centre. The £1.7m contribution to housing will be delivered as improvements to insulation

page 4 in the Councils housing stock to meet Better Homes standards in terms of energy efficiency and quality of residential accommodation, as well as the potential to connect to the district heating network when implemented. The council has suggested that the sums of money for the district energy centre and housing should be interchangeable to ensure that benefits are maximised according to eventual priorities and requirements at the time, which is acceptable. Response to consultation

24 Statutory consultees have responded to the Council as follows:

English Heritage (Archaeology) sought conditions to secure a programme for archaeological investigations followed by archaeological works where specified.

Environment Agency requested the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme, and an informative advising of the legal requirement for a waste management plan (SWMP). Asked that the applicant consider how the scheme might achieve more green or brown roofs.

Metropolitan Police satisfied that the building has taken into account the basic principles of designing out crime and should not create issues of that nature. Also confirmed that there are adequate resources in place to manage any protests and that the safety and security of the proposed new Institute have been the subject of considerable scrutiny by the relevant services. Requested a section 106 contribution for additional staffing of the Kings Cross Safer Neighbourhoods Team.

Network Rail responded with a number of measures for the applicant to take regarding construction methodology and protecting its duties as a statutory undertaker, particularly in relation to HS1.

Thames Water noted the developers responsibilities in relation to proper provision for surface water drainage, waste water and protection of waste and water infrastructure running under and near the site, and requested that informatives be attached relating to maintenance access and early consultation with Thames Water in advance of construction.

London Underground requested consultation from the applicant in relation to the construction works to ensure there will be no impact on London Underground infrastructure.

CABE recognised that significant improvements have been made in the design development and support the project subject to the following comments: emerging proposals for the British Library should be in sympathy and compatible with the public realm proposals, review of the staff entrance arrangements to minimise risk of confusion.

25 The following agencies did not comment, had no objections subject to conditions or minor alterations, or raised no objections: English Heritage (Built Conservation), LB Islington, Natural England.

26 The application was advertised by the Council via site and press notices, and consultation letters were sent to 741 local residents in Somers Town. The Council received 159 responses, of which 37 were from local residents (32 objecting). Of the 120 other (wider Camden, Greater London, UK) responses received by the Council, 112 were objections. In addition, a 19-name petition objecting to the scheme was received.

27 Objections were also received from community groups, other groups and organisations, including:

page 5 Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee St Pancras and Somers Town Planning Action Ossulston Tenants and Residents Association Ossulston Estate 2 Leaseholders Association Camden Town Urban Design Improvement Society (CATUDIS) Winston Tenants Association (Winston House, Endsleigh Street WC1H) Revd Paul Hawkins of St Pancras Parish Church Councillor Roger Robinson (St Pancras & Somers Town Ward) Councillor Maya de Souza (Highgate Ward) Councillor Brian Coleman, London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden National Union of Rail Maritime & Transport Workers (RMT) PCS Trade Union British Library Branch Camden Friends of the Earth 20th Century Society Action for our Planet The Animal Protection Party

28 The above groups and residents raised multiple reasons for objection which can be summarised as follows:

Land use: Inadequate information about the type of research to be conducted, divergence from planning policy requiring housing and affordable housing, public facilities, open space and tourism, incompatible use with surrounding area and not in accordance with PPS23, should be reserved for future British Library expansion. Mismatch between UKCMRIs health benefiting aims and its unsuitable location

Transport, Traffic and pollution: Noise and disturbance, e.g. from protestors, and general people pressures in the area, air quality from construction and building operation, increased traffic, congestion and parking pressures in the area, location and impact of deliveries on Brill Place

Security and public-order: Risk of contamination/outbreaks/leakages of viral/bacterial materials in densely populated area, increased risk of terrorist activity (compounded next to international rail terminal), disruption from protests, emergencies or mass evacuations affecting the area and its key transport links, impact of increased security and surveillance on atmosphere in area

Building height, bulk, massing and design: Over-dominant/monolithic building height, bulk, scale, fails to relate to surrounding buildings and open spaces, overshadowing and loss of light to local homes, overshadowing of St Pancras, unsympathetic design that is not in local context, impact on adjacent Listed Buildings, impact on St Pauls viewing corridor,

Use of public funds: Lack of need / waste of public money, unfair bidding procedure/sale of site, high costs and incalculable risks, waste of funds that could otherwise have been spent on medical research, financial risk

Community related: Makes no/ little contribution to the community, local health and employment, increased pressure on open spaces, concern that increased permeability could affect privacy of local residents, disappointment over lack of permeability through a very large site

Animal welfare: Opposed to animal testing on moral, ethical and scientific grounds

page 6 Sustainability: Unsustainable/inadequate contribution towards heat and power for the area, risk of flooding/hydrology, concern over effects on the River Fleet, impact on the water table.

29 One letter of objection was sent to the Mayor, raising concern over the location of a research facility in central London and the risks of potential contagion from pathogens housed in the facility.

30 In relation to the objections listed above, matters relating to the principle of the use, design, scale, bulk, security, transport and sustainability have been dealt with in this and the previous (stage 1) report.

31 Many of the detailed matters relating to land use, community impact, environmental impact, animal welfare and the impact on the amenities of local residents are not in this instance strategic planning matters and have been addressed by Camden Council in its committee report.

32 Support for the scheme noted the proposed design, land use, community and economic benefits, and positive economic impact of the proposals. Over twenty organisations and/or their representatives submitted representations in support of the scheme, including:

Camden Town Unlimited London & Continental Stations & Properties Kings Cross Central Partnership Limited Renovo Core Technology Facility (Manchester-based pharmaceuticals company) Glaxo Smith Kline CBI High Speed 1 British Library Medical Research Council The Royal Society UCL Partners Cancer Research UK Society of Biology Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust College of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Dundee University of Oxford Department of Zoology University of Manchester The Babraham Institute, Laboratory of Molecular Signalling, Cambridge Professor Sir Marc Feldmann, Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, Imperial College London Professor Keith Gull (Molecular Microbiology), Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford Professor Roger Keynes (Neuroscience), University of Cambridge Professor Stephen P Jackson, Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge Professor TH Rabbitts, University of Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine Professor Karen Steel, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Professor Sir David Weatherall, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford

33 Reasons provided for the support of the scheme covered the contribution to improvements in medicine, economic advantage, health, local improvements to public realm, accessibility and

page 7 connectivity, quality of the design, employment opportunities, proximity to other research, medical and scientific facilities, contribution to local community facilities.

34 Councillor Peter Brayshaw (St Pancras & Somers Town Ward) and Training Link (local enterprise and training facilitator for Somers Town funded by Camden Council) also expressed support, provided that the Council would secure construction jobs/training; career opportunities in science and medicine, educational activities with local schools; seed-funding/sustainable provision for the Living Centre; and a contribution to Camdens housing needs. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

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

36 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

37 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

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

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

page 8 40 The redevelopment of this site for a world class research institution is supported in strategic planning terms. The proposal will help London maintain its role as a centre for knowledge and excellence, and its competitiveness on a national, European, and global scale, and will contribute to local, regional and national economic development. The scheme will benefit local residents with new community facilities, education, training and health initiatives targeted at the local community. The concerns raised by objectors have been satisfactorily addressed by the Council, the applicant, or in the stage 1 report and where appropriate, mitigation has been assured via planning condition, section106 contribution, or detailed design.

41 The building design has evolved after extensive consultation with GLA, CABE and local Council officers, and the design is of a high quality and a significant improvement over earlier proposals. The design responds appropriately to context, features high quality public realm, a highly sustainable design, and succeeds in delivering a world-class building to a challenging brief.

42 The concerns previously raised by the Mayor in relation to detailed design, security, transport, and sustainable development have all been satisfactorily addressed. It is also noted that the revised application achieves improvements to the design and landscaping. The proposed section 106 contributions including £5.5million towards district energy and improvement of Council homes is welcomed.

43 The recent improvements to the proposal are welcomed, with all outstanding matters resolved. The proposal is compliant with the London Plan, and on this basis the Mayor is content to allow Camden Council to determine the application itself.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Alexandra Reitman, Case Officer 020 7983 4804 email [email protected]

page 9

planning report PDU/ 2381/01 20 October 2010 Land at Brill Place / Midland Road, Euston

in the London Borough of Camden planning application no. 2010/4721/P

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

The applicant The applicant is the UKCMRI Consortium, consisting of Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council (MRC), and University College London (UCL). The architects are HOK and PLP.

Strategic issues The proposal for a world class medical research institution is welcomed in strategic terms, and it accords with London Plan policies on innovation, employment, health and education. Whilst the mix of uses is acceptable, the applicant should agree with the Council an appropriate contribution towards local housing. The design of the building has improved significantly, and along with the well considered public realm proposals, is of a high quality. The BREEAM excellent aspiration is welcomed although further assurance is needed of the proposals contribution to the delivery of a district energy network. The proposal will have an acceptable impact on public transport, cycling, and highways although assurance is required that any demonstrations could be effectively managed to have no detrimental impact on the operation of the transport network.

Recommendation That Camden Council be advised that the application complies with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 77 of this report. The Council should, however, take account of the comments made in paragraph 78 of this report.

page 10 Context

1 On 16 September 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 27 October 2010 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 Mayors use in deciding what decision to make.

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

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

5 The Mayor of Londons statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

6 The proposal site is located to the north of the British Library. It is bounded to the east by Midland Road and the western entrance to St Pancras International Station, to the north by Brill Place and the Purchese Street open space, to the west by Ossulston Street and residential uses, and to the south by a vacant lot belonging to the British Library. The site sits just outside of the Central Activities Zone.

7 The site is one of the most accessible locations in London and has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 6b. In addition to being adjacent to one of the main entrances to St Pancras International Station, the site also benefits from easy access to Kings Cross Station and to Kings Cross St Pancras Underground station which is served by six underground lines. The site is also served by four bus routes on Midland Road and a number of other services on Euston Road.

8 The site is located approximately 250m north of the A501 Euston Road which is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and forms part of the London Inner Ring Road which is also the northern boundary of the Congestion Charging Zone. Midland Road is one way southbound to the south of the junction with Brill Place to Euston Road and has a single lane for

page 11 general traffic and a bus lane. Midland Road becomes Pancras Road to the north of the Brill Place junction where it is two-way.

9 The nearest Strategic Road Network (SRN) is a section of York Way northbound with Wharfdale Road eastbound and Caledonian Road (A5203) southbound to the east of the site forming a north-south link with the Inner Ring Road. The A4200 to the west of the site adjacent to Euston Station is also part of the SRN.

10 The site was previously used as a staging area for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and is currently used temporarily as an urban garden. The site boundary includes the vehicular access to the British Library from Midland Road.

11 The housing to the north and west is generally council housing in five-storey blocks, with those to the west listed at Grade II. There are several listed buildings within the immediate vicinity of the site, including St Pancras and Kings Cross Stations.

Details of the proposal

12 The proposal comprises a single building with a total floor area of 100,494sqm GEA to be used for biomedical research, to accommodate 1730 researchers and support staff. The building features four storeys of accommodation below ground, seven storeys of laboratory accommodation (sui generis) above ground, and the equivalent of four storeys of plant space above that. The ground floor of the building will accommodate an auditorium, meeting rooms, exhibition space, a teaching laboratory and a community facility which will all be accessible to the public (D2). The building will also include a staff restaurant, research laboratories, additional meeting spaces and administrative offices.

View down Midland Road to main entrance (source: UKCMRI)

13 The main entrance to the building for staff and visitors will be on the eastern side of the site, Midland Road, facing the entrance to St Pancras station. A second entrance for staff is on the western side of the building, on Ossulston Street.

14 The proposals are for a car free scheme with an internal secured servicing area, cycle parking, pedestrian links and public realm. The proposal incorporates landscape and public realm

page 12 improvements to perimeter of the building, including a public space in the front of the main entrance, a raised grassy area in front of the staff entrance, a pedestrian route through the block to the south of the building connecting Midland Road to Ossulston street, and improvement and widening of the pavement to Brill Place along the northern boundary of the site.

15 As noted above, the site currently includes the vehicular access to the British Library from Midland Road. A separate application has been made to relocate this vehicular access to the south of the site to allow for the proposed UKCMRI building to accommodate the whole site. Case history

16 Pre-planning application meetings were held with the applicant on 1 February 2009, 2 July 2009, 3 December 2009, and 4 February 2010, along with a series of design workshops with Camden Council in 2009 and 2010. The applicant made presentations to the Mayor on 4 February 2009 and 29 June 2010.

17 The applicant has also had pre-application discussions with TfL, and the main change to the scheme as a result of these discussions was the incorporation of a pedestrian link along the southern boundary of the site, as requested by Camden Council and TfL officers. At pre- application stage comments were also raised by TfL in relation to the risk of impact on the transport network as a result of demonstrations by animal rights activists. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

18 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

World city role London Plan Mix of uses London Plan Economic development London Plan; the Mayors Economic Development Strategy Health London Plan Education London Plan; Ministerial statement July 2010 Urban design London Plan; PPS1 Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayors Energy Strategy; Mayors draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayors draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG Transport London Plan; the Mayors Transport Strategy; PPG13

19 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 2006 Camden Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

20 The following are also relevant material considerations: The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation. The Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies, which were found sound following an examination in public and are expected to be adopted by the Council at its meeting on 8 November 2010. The Midland Road Planning Brief Supplementary Planning Guidance, which was adopted by the Council in October 2003.

page 13

World city role, mix of uses, and economic development

21 The proposed mix of uses accords with the strategic policies of the London Plan, in particular policies 1.1 London in its global, European and United Kingdom Context, 3A.22 Medical Excellence and 3A. 25 Higher and further education, which encourage the promotion of London as a centre for knowledge, and innovation, the maintenance of Londons role as a national and international centre of scientific, medical, research and academic excellence and promotion of the citys competitiveness on a national, European, and global scale.

22 The applicant aims to deliver a research institute of international calibre and importance. The site is of a sufficient size to accommodate a facility of the required scale to be competitive on a global level. The site is adjacent to the CAZ boundary, and the proximity of the proposal to other educational, medical and scientific institutions as well as to St Pancras International station will provide the centre with a strong competitive advantage in comparison to other British and European cities, whilst facilitating closer collaboration and exchange with colleagues across the UK and Europe. The proposal therefore accords with London Plan policy 1.1 (and draft replacement London Plan policy 2.1) and the Mayors Economic Development Strategy.

23 London Plan policies 3B.1 Developing Londons economy, 3B.5 Supporting Innovation, 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners, support London as a research location, encourage the application of the products of research in the capitals economic development, and recognise the needs for accommodation of further education institutions in the parts of London where they are located, including Bloomsbury/Euston. The locational advantages of the site, as well as the work of the UKCMRI, will allow the scheme to contribute to the local economy through direct and indirect investment, local spending by those working in the centre, job creation out of the activities of the centre and revenue from potential biotech and other start-up businesses based on the work of the UKCMRI. This proposal therefore accords with the above London Plan policies as well as draft replacement London Plan policies 4.1 Developing Londons economy and 4.10 New and emerging economic sectors.

24 The Council adopted a planning brief in 2003 that set out that development on this site should deliver housing as part of a mixed-use development. London Plan policy 3B.3 Mixed use development promotes provision of housing as part of a mixed-use approach in the CAZ in particular. The applicant has been in discussion with the Council to determine the appropriate level of contribution to housing in the borough as part of this planning application. Whilst this site is outside of the CAZ, the Councils approach of seeking a reasonable contribution is supported and should be delivered through the section 106. Health and education

25 London Plan policies 3A.20 Health objectives and 3A.21 Locations for health care seek to ensure the improvement of the health of local populations and the provision of health facilities as part of new developments, reflecting the Mayors duty to promote better health across Londons population. The proposal incorporates space for a community health facility, and the proposed section 106 agreement includes contributions to cover the running costs of the facility and programmes to ensure local participation in the research initiatives to address health inequality issues affecting the community. The proposal therefore accords with London Plan policies 3A.20 and 3A.21, as well as draft replacement London Plan policies 3.2 Addressing health inequalities and 3.18 Healthcare facilities.

page 14 26 The building will include a teaching laboratory for local schools, and the applicant has set out aspirations to work with local schools to establish programmes to foster enthusiasm for science and medicine. The draft section 106 agreement will include contributions to enable linkages with local schools by establishing a schools centre, including classroom and laboratory space, and an education team for co-ordination of the education programme, as well as the funding of science teacher post in local schools. The applicant will also provide and fund training associated with construction and jobs within the institute, with local residents to be given priority in recruitment to fulltime posts in the institute. These initiatives are supported and reflect London Plan policies 3A.24 Education facilities, 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners, and draft replacement London Plan policies 3.19 education facilities and 4.12 Improving opportunities for all. Urban design

27 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage and views.

28 London Plan policies 4B.9 and 4B.10, which relate to the specific design issues associated with tall and large-scale buildings, are of particular relevance to the proposed scheme. These policies set out specific additional design requirements for tall and large-scale buildings, which are defined as buildings that are significantly taller than their surroundings and/or have a significant impact on the skyline and are larger than the threshold sizes set for the referral of planning applications to the Mayor.

29 The immediate context of the proposal is varied, both in the grain and scale of development. The surroundings include large institutional buildings (the British Library), major transport interchanges, and several listed buildings, both grand (The Midland Grand Hotel on Euston Road at St Pancras) and domestic (the Chamberlain and Levita housing estates to the west of the site). A public open space lies to the north of the site, which provides amenity for the surrounding residential uses. An entrance to the Eurostar and mainline St Pancras station is directly opposite the eastern boundary of the site, whilst Brill Place along the north boundary of the site serves as an alternative to Euston Road for those seeking to move east and west, to and from Euston.

page 15

The roof steps down towards Somers Town as seen in this aerial with St Pancras in the background (Source: UKCMRI)

30 The proposed building comprises four wings of offices, labs and communal spaces, joined by two atria which cross at the centre; these are the main circulation spaces and are fully glazed. The building is approximately eighteen residential storeys high at its highest point, dropping to approximately thirteen residential storeys on either end. The massing and height of the scheme has been reduced from initial designs by sinking four levels underground. Notwithstanding this effort, the technical requirements of the building require extensive areas of plant that result in the equivalent of approximately seven residential storeys of plant and roof space, above the approximately seven residential storeys of lab space. The plant has been contained in a vaulted, curving roof that is set back from the building edge and curves slightly both east/west as well as north/south, so that when viewed obliquely, the visual impact of the plant is diminished and the extra height is seen to recede.

View of building from outside St Pancras Station (Source: UKCMR

page 16 31 The proposal responds to its varied context by introducing a form which has been adjusted to respond individually to each surrounding environment, whilst employing a consistent language for the base and unifying element at the roof which identifies the building as a single institution. In deference to the lower scale residential to the north and west, the two northern wings are one storey lower than the two southern wings, whilst the roof structure has been pulled back from the western edge of the building to allow the proposal to keep more restrained approach along the residential street. The dramatic roof structure connects the four wings of the building and cantilevers towards the eastern, main entrance facing St Pancras station, where it creates a canopy over the entrance, which emphasises the importance of the entrance and the building. 32 The building materials proposed differentiate the primary functions and uses of the different parts of the building full height glazing for the public and circulation areas, a variegated pale buff terracotta cladding for the laboratories, and a silver/grey metal for the roof as do the basic patterns and layering of elements, with primarily vertical detailing for the inhabitable parts of the building and a strong horizontal run of louvres for the roof plant. The ground floor is active on at much of the building, with the long Brill Place elevation animated by exhibition spaces, staff canteen and circulation area, and two thirds of the Midland Road elevation fully glazed.

33 The one area which remains of concern is the northern elevation to Brill Place; above ground floor the northern elevation lacks the strong and sophisticated approach of the eastern and western elevations. This is an important elevation as it will be seen in full elevation from the open space to the north of the site and is likely to have the greatest impact on the residential communities to the north. The elevation features a glazed skin which is cantilevered over the terracotta base and is characterised in the design and access statement as a projecting bay window to the activities within. The application of this skin, which has both vertical and horizontal elements with equal emphasis, and a materiality and unit size that corresponds more to the qualities of the roof, undermines the strength of the terracotta base and the deliberate effort to differentiate the roof from the rest of the building. The applicant is encouraged to explore the approach to the northern elevation to resolve this weakness.

View of northern elevation on Brill Place (Source: UKCMRI)

34 The scheme incorporates a new east-west route to the south of the site, which contributes to improved block permeability and connections to Euston, and also features improvements to the

page 17 pavement and landscaping along Brill Place. The proposal also provides high quality external amenity spaces at the eastern and western ends of the site, with hard landscaping and a large public space at the main, eastern frontage, and softer, green landscaped space at the western, staff entrance. Trees will be provided throughout the northern edges of the scheme and at the main corners, although due to the presence of strategic infrastructure below-ground, these will be provided in raised planters which incorporate seating.

Ground floor plan (Source: UKCMRI)

35 The applicant has addressed the issue of level changes on the site within the building, by using the change in level as a natural mechanism for addressing the security screening requirements of such an important piece of infrastructure, whilst ensuring level access for all from Midland Road to the main spaces open to the public including the lecture theatre, teaching lab and exhibition space.

36 The building design has evolved after extensive consultation with GLA and Camden Council officers, and the current design represents a significant improvement over earlier proposals, one

page 18 which responds appropriately to context, and delivers a world-class building to a challenging brief. Overall the scheme responds and accords with the London Plan policies on design. Sustainable Development

37 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions (Policy 4A.1).

Climate change adaptation

38 London Plan policy 4A.9 outlines five principles for ensuring effective adaptation to climate change in new developments. Further guidance is given in the Mayors Supplementary Planning Guidance Sustainable Design and Construction, which sets out the Mayors essential and preferred standards for sustainable design and construction.

39 The proposal aspires to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, with a target of achieving the highest possible BREEAM rating of Excellent. This will be achieved through a number of measures, including landscaping and brown roofs where practicable to enhance local biodiversity, reduction of water consumption through use of water efficient fittings and innovative technologies for the steam boiler system, incorporation of extensive recycling and composting facilities for the building users, and the use of sustainably managed supply chains for building materials.

40 Subject to these measures being secured by condition, the scheme accords with London Plan policies 4A.3 Sustainable Design and construction, 4A.9 Adaptation to Climate Change, 4A.11 Living roofs and walls, and 4A.16 Water supplies and resources.

Climate change mitigation

41 London Plan policies 4A.4-11 focus on mitigation of climate change and require a reduction in a developments carbon dioxide emissions through the use of passive design, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The London Plan and draft replacement London Plan require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.

42 The regulated carbon dioxide emissions of the proposed development are estimated at 2,714 tonnes of CO2 per annum based on a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development, however due to the nature of the development and the processes and equipment that will be used in the building, unregulated emissions account for a very large proportion of site emissions and are estimated to be 29,356 Tonnes of CO2 per annum. Combined regulated and unregulated carbon dioxide emissions will be 32,070 Tonnes of CO2 per annum.

Be lean

43 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed, and both air permeability and heat loss will be improved beyond the minimum requirements set by building regulations. Other features include energy efficient lighting and controls and variable flow pumps.

44 A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 10% compared to the Target Emissions Rate of a 2006 Building Regulations compliant development will be achieved after the application of passive

page 19 design and energy efficiency measures. On a whole energy basis, i.e. including regulated and unregulated, a reduction of 17% from energy efficiency is proposed.

45 Adopting best practice, it could be possible to achieve reductions of around 25% over 2006 Building Regulations through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should reconsider the potential for further energy efficiency measures that reduce regulated carbon emissions.

Be clean

46 Combined Heat and Power: The applicant is proposing to install a CHP engine in the energy centre which will meet part of the space heating, low temperature hot water and steam heat demands. A further reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 38% will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy. On a whole energy basis a reduction of 17% is envisaged. The applicant should identify the space that has been allocated for CHP on the plant room layout drawing.

47 District heating: The Euston Road District Heating Network, currently under development, will be in the vicinity of the proposed development. Delivery of the network will require the installation of a CHP at an energy centre in Phoenix House, which is owned by the Council and located directly north of the application site. Whilst the proposed development incorporates a CHP, as noted above, this CHP will not be large enough to provide the full energy load required. The technical and economic feasibility work for the district heating network assumes that the energy centre in Phoenix House would be large enough to allow the export of electricity and heat to meet the applicants needs for heat and electricity.

48 The applicant has stated the intention to make sufficient provision within the site planning to enable the connection of the building to available district heating mains routed in proximity to the site. However, taking into account the context set out in the paragraph above, further information should be provided to demonstrate that provision for future connection is actively being made i.e. planned routes for pipes and cables between Phoenix House and the proposal, electrical distribution equipment to facilitate the import of electricity from CHP located in Phoenix House, etc.

49 Further evidence is required to demonstrate that the applicant is actively committed to helping to implement the wider energy strategy for the area before the proposals can be considered acceptable. The section 106 agreement for the development should cement the applicants role in the wider strategy.

50 Cooling: Various passive design measures including shading devices and high performance glazing will be used to minimise the demand for active cooling of the building. A chilled water system will be used to provide the remaining cooling required for the fresh air supplied to the facility and internal spaces. The main items of plant consist of four 4MW water cooled chillers located in the energy centre with the associated cooling towers located on the roof. A secondary chilled water variable speed pumping system will distribute chilled water around the building.

Be Green

51 In terms of renewable energy, 1,700 sq.m. of photovoltaic arrays will provide part of the electricity requirements of the development. The proposed area takes into account practical constraints relating to overshadowing. A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 8% will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. On a whole energy basis a reduction of 0.6% is proposed.

page 20 52 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 1,381 tonnes of CO2 per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 49% compared to a 2006 Building Regulations compliant building.

53 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. However, further information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and carbon dioxide savings verified. Transport

Pedestrian and cycle links

54 The development proposal includes public realm and open space around the building focussing on the main entrance onto Midland Road. The proposed pedestrian link along the southern side of the building is welcomed and provides pedestrian permeability around the site and the safeguarding of potential new pedestrian routes between St Pancras and Euston stations.

55 Legible London wayfinding boards should be provided to further encourage and assist pedestrian movements which should be funded by the developer through the Section 106 agreement. This will ensure compliance with the replacement London Plan policy 6.10 Walking.

56 The pedestrian routes audit is considered to be acceptable in terms of the scope of the assessment and the approach. The conclusions of the audit state that all of the routes considered are generally of good quality in terms of the footways, crossing points, lighting and security. On this basis, TfL does not consider it necessary for any improvements to the pedestrian routes external to the site to be made.

57 Whilst there are a number of cycle routes within the vicinity of the site that have been identified in the Transport Assessment, the development does not necessitate the need for any improvements to cycle routes in the area.

British Library access

58 TfL is not opposed to the principle of relocating of the British Library access on Midland Road. However, the access relocation will require a change in the bus stand locations on Midland Road outside the entrance to St Pancras Station and TfL requires confirmation that any effects on existing bus infrastructure are fully considered, and that the necessary mitigation is funded by the developer through a Section 278 or Section 106 agreement.

59 The proposed reconfiguration of the two pedestrian crossings into a single crossing directly outside the entrance to St Pancras Station is welcomed. It is requested that the width of the crossing be increased to provide a suitable crossing capacity for the potentially large number of pedestrians crossing at this location. These works should be secured through a Section 278 or Section 106 agreement.

Car and cycle parking

60 The car free nature of the development proposals is welcomed. The proposals to reconfigure the on street car parking to create five on street disabled parking bays is also welcomed.

page 21 61 It is recognised that there are no relevant cycle parking standards for the Sui Generis land use classification. The cycle parking provision of 173 spaces within the site plus 26 spaces for visitors, which represents one space per 10 staff and visitors, is considered to be acceptable.

Servicing

62 The draft delivery & service plan (DSP) document provided is generally acceptable in its approach and the consolidation of deliveries is welcomed. A final DSP document should be secured by use of planning condition to ensure that the consolidation approach is adhered to and the number of deliveries is kept to the minimum stipulated.

Taxis

63 The proposed taxi drop off lay-by on the west side of Midland Road is supported in principle. The development itself would not result in any noticeable effects on the operation of the taxi rank serving St Pancras Station. However, the reconfiguration of the pedestrian crossing and bus stops outside the station associated with the British Library access relocation will need to be such that they do not impact on the operation of the taxi rank.

Impacts of the scheme on the transport network

64 The trip generation assessment is acceptable and robust. Given the car free nature of the site and its location it is accepted that there would not be a detrimental impact on the local highway network and hence there would be no noticeable impact on the operation of the TLRN or SRN.

65 The additional bus passengers could be accommodated by the existing network and hence it is not necessary for any mitigation or financial contributions towards bus service capacity enhancements. London Underground confirm that the impact on the capacity of individual underground services is tolerable given the large number of services available at the site and distribution of additional trips on these services. There would not be a noticeable impact on the capacity of rail services given the location of the site within walking distance of the three mainline stations of St Pancras, Kings Cross and Euston.

Construction Management

66 The information provided in relation to the construction process is helpful. The final construction management plan should be secured by planning condition in consultation with TfL.

Security issues and demonstration management

67 The institutions who will occupy the proposed development have in the past been the target of demonstrators and protest activity. The proposal is therefore highly likely to give rise to protest activity by animal rights activists. The location of this site is highly sensitive given that it is adjacent to an entrance to St Pancras International Station, and TfL has concerns that any organised public disturbances may affect the safe and efficient operation of public transport services at Kings Cross St Pancras underground, Kings Cross station, bus services on Midland Road and the taxi rank on Midland Road serving the station, as well as local highways.

68 TfL is required, under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, to consider the likely effect of proposals on crime, disorder and community safety. On this basis, TfL is required to ensure that steps are in place to prevent crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and behaviour that adversely affects the environment. The Mayor is also under a duty under section 17 of the Crime & Disorder Act to do all he reasonably can to prevent Crime & Disorder.

page 22 69 London Plan policy 3C.10 Public transport security seeks to ensure that Londons transport network and services are as secure as is reasonably practicable. As such, assurance from the Metropolitan Police is required to ensure that demonstrations could be effectively managed without any detrimental impacts on the operation of the transport network. This will allow TfL and the Mayor to be satisfied that the development is in accordance with the draft replacement in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.10 and their duties under the Crime & Disorder Act.

Travel Plan

70 The draft Travel Plan requires some additional work in order for it to pass the Attrbute assessment. The plan should indicate how it will be funded to demonstrate that the initiatives and monitoring can be delivered and the baseline targets should be identified. Measures such as flexitime initiative for staff will aid in reducing the impact of the development on public transport services during the peak hours.

Traffic Management Act

71 Should this application be granted planning permission, the developer and their representatives are reminded that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic Management Act 2004. 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.

Crossrail

72 The proposed development is outside of the Crossrail Central Activities Zone charging area and is of a land use classification without a charging tariff. On this basis there is no Crossrail charge for the application.

Summary

73 The above sets out a number of issues for which TfL require further information and discussion before a positive recommendation can be provided on the proposals that the development is in accordance with the London Plan and acceptable in terms of the safe operation of the public transport and highway network. TfL will need to be involved at an early stage in discussions and drafting of relevant planning conditions and Section 106 obligations. Local planning authoritys position

74 The local planning authoritys position is not known at this time. Legal considerations

75 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

page 23 this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayors statement and comments. Financial considerations

76 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

77 London Plan policies on world city role, mix of uses, economic development, health, education, urban design, sustainable development, and transport are relevant to this application. In general, the application complies with these policies, for the following reasons:

World city role and mix of uses: The proposal will help London maintain its role as a centre for knowledge and excellence, and its competitiveness on a national, European, and global scale, (London Plan policy 1.1 and draft replacement London Plan policy 2.1). The principle of establishing an institute for leading scientific and research uses on this site is also supported as it reflects the strategic policies in the London Plan relating to innovation, maintaining Londons role as a national and international centre of scientific, medical, research and academic excellence (London Plan policies 3B.5, 3A.22 and 3A.25). Economic development: The proposal will contribute to economic development through direct and indirect investment, local spending, job creation and spin-off revenue from start- up businesses and new patents. (London Plan policies 3B.1, 3B.5, 3B.11, and draft replacement London Plan policies 4.1, 4.10) Health: The proposal incorporates space for a community health facility, and the applicant will undertake initiatives to help address health inequality issues affecting the community. (London Plan policy 3A.20, draft replacement London Plan policies 3.2 and 3.18).

Education: The building will include a teaching laboratory for local schools, and the applicant will establish educational programmes in science and medicine. The applicant will also provide and fund training associated with construction and jobs within the institute. (London Plan policies 3A.24, 3B.11, draft replacement London Plan policies 3.19 and 4.12).

Urban Design: The building design has evolved after extensive consultation with GLA and local council officers, and the current design represents a significant improvement over earlier proposals, one which responds appropriately to context, delivers high quality public realm and delivers a world-class building to a challenging brief. (London Plan policies 4B.1, 4B.2, 4B.3, 4B.8 and 4B.10).

Sustainable Development: The proposal aspires to meet the highest standards of sustainable design and construction, with a target of achieving the highest possible BREEAM rating of Excellent. The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. However, further information is required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and carbon dioxide savings verified. (London Plan policies 4A.1, 4A.2, 4A.3, 4A.4, 4A.5, 4A.7, 4A.9, 4A.11and 4A.16)

Transport: The proposed pedestrian link along the southern side of the building is welcomed and no further improvements to the pedestrian or cycle routes in the area are needed. The proposed reconfiguration of the two pedestrian crossings into a single crossing directly outside the entrance to St Pancras Station is welcomed, as is the car free

page 24 nature of the proposals and provision for blue badge parking bays. The cycle parking provision is acceptable, the draft delivery & service plan (DSP) is generally acceptable. There would not be a detrimental impact on the local highway network, and the impact on the capacity on bus, rail and underground services is tolerable. The scheme therefore accords with policies 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.3, 3C.20, 3C.21, 3C.22, 3C.23 and 3C.25.

78 Notwithstanding that the application complies with the London Plan, it would be improved by the following changes:

Urban Design: Further development and refinement of the northern elevation to ensure a beneficial and positive visual impact for the residential communities to the north of the site, to accord better with policy 4B.1. Sustainable Development: Reconsideration of the potential for further energy efficiency measures that reduce regulated carbon emissions beyond the 17% proposed; identification of the space that has been allocated for CHP; provision of further information to demonstrate that provision for future connection to a District Energy network is actively being made; and further evidence to demonstrate that the applicant is actively committed to helping to implement the wider energy strategy for the area, to accord better with policies 4A.3, 4A.5 and 4A.6. Transport: Legible London wayfinding boards should be provided, additional work on the draft Travel Plan Attrbute assessment and assurance of funding of initiatives. Assurance from the Metropolitan Police is required to ensure that demonstrations could be effectively managed without any detrimental impacts on the operation of the transport network, in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.10. Further detail on reconfiguration of the pedestrian crossing, and increase of the width of the crossing to be considered, and bus stops outside the station associated with the British Library access relocation to be provided. Confirmation that any effects of the British Library access relocation on existing bus infrastructure are fully considered, and confirmation that the necessary mitigation is funded by the developer. A final DSP document should be secured by use of planning condition to ensure that the consolidation approach is adhered to and the number of deliveries is kept to the minimum stipulated. The final construction management plan should be secured by planning condition in consultation with TfL. TfL will need to be involved at an early stage in discussions and drafting of relevant planning conditions and Section 106 obligations.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Alexandra Reitman, Case Officer 020 7983 4804 email [email protected]

page 25