NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391- 393 LIVERPOOL ROAD, , LONDON N1 1LR APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING APPLICATION LPA REF: P2018/3267/FUL

Prepared By

NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES

TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS

WWW.NTAPLANNING.CO.UK [email protected]

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 1 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

CONTACTS

Nicholas Taylor Partner [email protected]

NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANTS

LONDON (HEAD OFFICE) 46 JAMES STREET LONDON W1U 1EZ

T. +44 (0)20 7636 3961

(LEEDS OFFICE) ONE BREWERY WHARF WATERLOO STREET LEEDS LS10 1GX

T. +44 (0)113 220 4521

WWW.NTAPLANNING.CO.UK [email protected]

Client

OLW Construction Ltd

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 2 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

CONTENTS

Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA 5

3. SITE HISTORY 6

4. THE APPEAL PROPOSALS 7

5. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8

6. STATEMENT OF CASE 9

7. CONCLUSIONS 13

APPENDICES

1. Officer’s Report P2018/3267/FUL 15

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 3 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement of case has been prepared by Nicholas Taylor + Associates on behalf of OLW Construction Ltd (OLW). The statement supports an appeal against the decision of the London Borough of Islington (“the Council” hereafter) to refuse planning permission for an application LPA Ref: P2018/3267/FUL.

1.2 The application is to extend a building at 391-393 Liverpool Road, Islington by the addition of a single storey on part of the roof.

1.3 The statement confines itself to town planning aspects of the appeal. It should be read in conjunction with two reports which accompanied the planning application, namely, the Design and Access statement by Sada Architecture and the Built Heritage report by CGMS.

1.4 For this appeal OLW have instructed two other firms, in order to provide independent appraisals of both the design and heritage implications of the scheme. Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture Ltd have assessed the heritage and conservation aspects of the proposal; and Goldstein Heather have provided an independent assessment of the design of the scheme

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 4 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 391-393 Liverpool Road is a part-5 storey, part-3 storey building situated on the west side of Liverpool Road. It is roughly L- shaped. Part of the ground floor at the front is occupied by a small supermarket; the remainder of the front is vacant. The four floors above and the three floors to the rear are in residential use, arranged as 14 flats. The building was erected in two stages, 391 Liverpool Road was constructed in 2010 and 393 Liverpool Road was constructed in 2005. For further details, please see the detailed history of the buildings contained in the statement by Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture Ltd

2.2 The supermarket has its own access off Liverpool Road. At the southern end of the shop there is a separate access to the flats. At the rear of the building there is a small yard which abuts the northern boundary of the property. There is no on site, allocated parking for cars. Refuse storage is in an enclosed store at the northern end of the building with a roller shutter door opening onto the pavement. Next to the door is a pair of gates which provide access to the side of the building and yard at the rear.

2.3 The immediate surroundings of the building are: to the North are the tracks of the railway which are in cutting, some 5m below adjacent street levels, and which run East- West. To the South, and physically attached to the appeal site, is another 3-5 storey building,387-389 Liverpool Road. There is then an access road, known as Epping Place, which serves a residential development to the West of the building. That development forms part of a wider redevelopment scheme, which includes a 5 storey block of flats fronting onto Offord Road. Islington Council approved that scheme in 1997 (ref. 961170). To the East the site adjoins Liverpool Road, the B515, a two lane single carriageway road which connects The Angel, Islington with .

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 5 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

3.0 SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

3.1 The appeal site has been the subject of numerous planning applications in the past 20 years. We list below in chronological order those which have a bearing on the current scheme

P023094 393, Liverpool Road: Construction of 5 storey building (GF B1 use; upper floors 10 flats). Approved

P042815 393, Liverpool Road: Construction of 5 storey building (GF B1 use: upper floors 10 flats). Approved

P071742 391 Liverpool Road: Construction of 5 storey building (GF B1 use; upper floors 4 flats). Approved

P102380 391 Liverpool Road: Construction of 5 storey building (GF A1 /A3 use; upper floors 4 flats). Approved

P2017/2876/FUL 391-393 Liverpool Road: Erection of 5th floor extension to provide two flats. Refused

P2018/3267/FUL 391-393 Liverpool Road: Erection of 5th floor extension to provide two flats (the appeal application). Refused

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 6 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

4.0 THE APPEAL PROPOSALS

4.1 The proposal is for an additional 2 x two bedroom flats which do not occupy the full extent of the building footprint, only the front part of the building which adjoins Liverpool Road.

4.2 The flats are both 2 bedroomed flats and they comply with the various technical standards laid down by Islington Council, and the “Technical housing standards-nationally described space standards”

4.3 The flats will share the same entrance at street level as the existing flats; this entrance is due to be upgraded as part of the scheme

4.4 The design of the scheme has evolved in the last two years. The Council rejected an earlier scheme on the same site on design grounds. We attach at Appendix 1 a copy of the officer’s report relating to the previous scheme.

4.5 The appeal application has taken into account the comments in the officer’s report and the reasons for refusal of the scheme. It incorporates a number of significant design changes.

4.6 First of all, the architect has changed the design and alignment of the windows on the east elevation. Now, they line up with the windows on the lower floors, to give a more balanced and resolved appearance

4.7 Secondly, the architect has introduced windows on the north elevation of the proposed roof extension in order to break up to some extent the large area of blank wall on that elevation.

4.8 Thirdly, this change should be read in conjunction with the introduction of a green wall on the ground to third floors of the north elevation which substantially reduces the area of render that will be visible and makes for a more interesting elevation.

4.9 Fourthly, on the east elevation the architect proposes to fill in the horizontal and vertical inset channels of no. 393 to tie in with the adjoining 391- see images below

4.10 Finally, the wall facing materials of the new flats will be of a much higher quality, namely zinc rather than render.

4.11 In conjunction with the appeal the applicant has offered a Unilateral Undertaking to contribute to the Council’s affordable housing fund, in accordance with their small sites policy. We attach a copy of the Undertaking

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 7 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

5.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 70, advises that local planning authorities should, when determining planning applications, have regard to the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations.

5.2 The development plan in Islington comprises the London Plan, the Islington Core Strategy, and the Development Management Policies (2013). Other material considerations would include, for example, guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 8 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

6.0 STATEMENT OF CASE

The need for extra housing

6.1 The strategic context for consideration of this appeal is the need for additional housing in London. Planning policies at every level – national, strategic and local – are united in supporting proposals for additional housing, particularly in an area of such high demand as London. This is true whether or not a particular council considers it has met the targets in the London Plan.

6.2 As the London Plan points out “The 2015-2036 figure of 49,000 additional homes a year provides the basis for the detailed housing need figures set out in this Plan. In light of the projected higher need, especially at the start of the plan period, this figure should be regarded as a minimum”. The figures contained within the Draft New London Plan has increased overall London targets.

6.3 In addition, Paragraph 59 of the NPPF (2018) states the following:

“To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

6.4 Although the scheme is for only two flats the appellant will make a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the Borough. This is in accordance with the Small Sites contribution policy operated by the Council. Under this policy the appellant has unilaterally offered to contribute the sum of £100,000 for affordable housing.

The location of extra housing

6.5 The majority of additional housing in London will be located on large brownfield sites. Nonetheless, the Government and GLA recognise that in a built-up area such as London, planners should look at all possible opportunities to increase housing supply.

6.6 One such opportunity, which has the merit of not building on valuable open space nor compromising other land uses (such as employment land or community facilities) is the upward extension of buildings.

6.7 This is stated within the NPPF at Paragraph 118(e):

“support opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. In particular, they should allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, is well designed (including complying with any local design policies and standards) and can maintain safe access and egress for occupiers.”

6.8 In similar vein, the draft London Plan confirms support for upward extension of dwellings. Thus, policy H2(d) states:

“To deliver the small sites . . . residential extensions (upward, rear and side)”

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 9 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

6.9 Furthermore, the Government’s consultation on ‘Planning Reform: Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes’ (October 2018) clearly points to their support for a new permitted development right which would ‘allow building up above existing buildings to promote new homes’.

“In addition, we are proposing a new permitted development right to allow building up above existing buildings to promote new homes. This will bring particular benefits to town centres but also more widely where opportunities exist for well-designed development in the airspace above buildings.”

6.10 Finally, the location of the appeal proposals is highly suitable for the provision of extra housing. It is only 3 minutes’ walk along Station Road to Highbury and Islington Station. The latter provides public rail transport on both the and the London Overground. It adjoins no fewer than 5 bus routes. The resulting PTAL value for the appeal property is 6a (the second best).

6.11 The proposed scheme is car-free, as per the draft Unilateral Undertaking.

Design considerations: introductory

6.12 The proposals do not contravene any policies in the development plan relating to changes of land use. Indeed, the Council themselves accept that the proposal is acceptable in land use terms. Their concern is solely to do with design.

6.13 The following paragraphs therefore set out some general design considerations which are pertinent to this case. A more detailed and fully worked design statement has been prepared by Goldstein Heather architects, who were appointed by the appellant, following the refusal, to provide “a second opinion”. It forms part of the appellant’s case.

Design considerations: the context

6.14 We acknowledge that design is an important consideration, witness the guidance in NPPF at paragraphs 124. Nonetheless, the context for considering design is also a relevant factor. That is to say, planners can rightly expect a higher standard of design for proposals in, for example, Conservation Areas or next to listed buildings, than would ordinarily be the case. At the other extreme, a building of more utilitarian design could be acceptable within an industrial estate.

6.15 In the present case, four aspects of context are worthy of note. In the first place, the appeal property is not within a Conservation Area. There is a Conservation Area about 100m to the South ( CA) and one about 50m to the North (St Mary Magdalene CA). The northern boundary of the Barnsbury CA is defined by Offord Road; the southern boundary of the St Mary Magdalene CA is bounded by the London Overground railway lines.

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 10 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

APPEAL SITE EDGED RED 6.16 The Council argue that the additional storey will harm the setting of the adjacent Conservation Areas. However, the appeal property is separated from the Barnsbury CA by the other buildings extending some 50m along Liverpool Road which lie between it and Offord Road. Both CGMS and Stephen Levrant make a similar point, albeit in slightly different ways. Thus, CGMS comment that views of the site from the Barnsbury CA are fairly limited. The only view of any significance, namely the view from the SE, is dominated by the Samuel Lewis Estate. (see page 27, column 3, paragraph 5 of CGMS report). Stephen Levrant observes that the impact on the CA will be minimal, given ‘the limited views and relationship’ between the appeal site and the CA (see Levrant report, page 58, paragraph 3).

6.17 With regard to the St Mary Magdalene CA, the appeal site is separated therefrom by the cutting of the Overground Railway which is about 20m wide at this point. We accept that, despite this, the appeal site is clearly visible from the North, but both CGMS and Levrant are in agreement that the introduction of a green wall on the North elevation will be a distinct improvement to the setting of the CA, compared with the rather bland rendered elevation that one sees at present (see CGMS P28, column 1, para 3; and Levrant page 59, paragraph 6).

6.18 In summary, we consider that the separation distances between the site and the Conservation Areas prevent any noticeable impact of the appeal proposals on those areas. For their part, both heritage consultants conclude that there will be no harm to the setting of the Conservation Areas.

6.19 Secondly, the building was constructed within the last 20 years and is not listed. It does not appear to be of outstanding architectural quality. It was constructed in two stages and, though the height of each stage is similar, the front elevation is not symmetrical. Therefore, it should be more readily able to accommodate change than if it was symmetrical.

6.20 Thirdly, the adjoining townscape is not close knit or rigorously defined. This is a consequence of a) the relatively wide road adjoining the site (Liverpool Road is 12m wide, including pavements at this point) and b) the openness of the Overground railway which is some 20m wide (including the cutting). Whilst

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 11 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

it is true that, as a result, the appeal site can be easily seen in long distance views from the North, by the same token this openness offers in our opinion greater latitude for altering the appeal building.

6.21 Finally, the applicants appointed a firm of architects to design the scheme, an indication of commitment to design on their part. Sada Architects have considerable experience of extensions to buildings and new buildings, in London. Local examples include Hampshire St, in Camden [image below];

6.22 and Old St, Islington. {image below]

6.23 In our opinion, the weight to be accorded to the design of the scheme should take the above contextual aspects into account.

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 12 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

Design considerations: the building and its setting

6.24 In his report on the application the Planning officer stated (paragraph 25) that “The established character of the buildings in the surrounding area is a maximum building height of 5 storeys.” This is not strictly true as it ignores for example the building at the corner of Liverpool Rd and Offord Rd which has a prominent gull wing roof at sixth floor level. See the proposed street scene elevation below, prepared by Sada Architects.

6.25 The proposed roof extension would rise above this established character and the additional height, scale, bulk and massing result in a top-heavy addition to the building. The additional height would create a dominant and inappropriate addition harming the character and appearance of the host building, the streetscene and the setting of the adjacent conservation areas.

6.26 Implementation of the appeal proposal will result in the property being one storey above its immediate neighbour, 387-389 Liverpool Road, and just over 716mm higher than its near neighbour to the south at 187-189 Offord Road – see street scene elevation above. This is not an objection in itself to the proposal and in our professional opinion the height differential is negligible and even more so when the high-quality design of the proposed scheme is considered. Variations in building height are of course commonplace. The block of flats at 187-189 Offord Road rises to 5 storeys (6 storeys including the gull wing roof) and is 2 full stories higher than its immediate neighbour to the north at 383-389 Liverpool Road.

6.27 Finally, and for the reasons given in paragraphs 6.15-6.17 we submit that the additional storey will cause no material harm to the setting of those areas.

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 13 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This statement of case supports an appeal against the decision of the London Borough of Islington to refuse planning permission in respect of a planning application for two flats.

7.2 The proposal will make a small but positive contribution to the stock of housing in Islington. Any contribution accords with national regional and local policy and is to be encouraged.

7.3 In association with the proposal the appellant will make a contribution to the Council’s affordable housing fund.

7.4 The flats will be located on top of part of the building, a location which is encouraged by the NPPF, the London Plan and draft guidance on amending the permitted development rules.

7.5 The location of the scheme is highly sustainable; the appeal site has a PTAL value of 6a.

7.6 The only issue which the Council has with the proposal relates to design. In this regard, the following points are relevant. The site is neither within nor adjoining a Conservation Area

7.7 The appeal property is not listed, either statutorily or locally.

7.8 The surrounding townscape is somewhat disjointed by reason of the wide road and railway cutting in the immediate vicinity. The appeal property itself is not symmetrical. These two factors make it easier for an extension of the building to be acceptable in design terms.

7.9 The applicant commissioned an architect to design the scheme in the first place and their design has been independently endorsed by Goldstein Feather and by Stephen Levrant Heritage Architecture Ltd from a Conservation point of view.

7.10 For the above reasons we consider that there is no justifiable design-based reason to reject the proposal, and we would ask that this appeal is allowed.

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 14 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

APPENDICES

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 15 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

APPENDIX ONE Officer’s Report P2018/3267/FUL

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 16 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 17 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 18 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 19 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 20 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 21 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 22 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 23 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 24 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 25 NICHOLAS TAYLOR + ASSOCIATES STATEMENT OF CASE

391 LIVERPOOL ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1 1LR 26