Planning Service Environment and Regeneration Department PO Box 3333 222 Upper Street London N1 1YA
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM NO: B7 Date: 1st September 2011
Application number P110392 Application type Full planning application Site Address: The Turnmill, 63, Clerkenwell Road, Islington, London, EC1M 5NP Proposal Demolition of the existing building and erection of a six storey building, plus basement with mezzanine level and roof top plant enclosure, providing for a total of 9,703 sq.m (GEA) of floorspace with 6,834 sq.m (GEA) for business (Class B1)and 2,869 sq.m (GEA) of flexible shop/restaurant/café/drinking establishment floorspace (Class A1/A3/A4) together with associated works.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission as set out in Appendix 1.
INTRODUCTION
Joint Conservation Area Consent (CAC) Application
1. A joint CAC application has been submitted (LBI ref: P110393) regarding the demolition of the existing 3-storey Victorian building. This application is also before the Committee and is also recommended for approval.
2. This report, for full planning permission, considers the merits of the new building; this report does not include an analysis of the case for the demolition of the existing building. Consideration of the impact of the proposed demolition on the conservation area, surrounding townscape, or acceptability of the loss with respect of PPS5, regional and local heritage policies is provided separately within the accompanying report relating to the conservation area consent application (LBI ref: P110393)
Site
3. The application site has a broadly rectangular footprint, is approximately 1,450sqm (0.145ha) in size and benefits from three street frontages, Clerkenwell Road to the north, Turnmill Street to the west and Broad Yard to the south – the site occupies a prominent corner location. For ease of reference the application site described above and shown at Appendix 3 ‘Site Plan’ shall hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’.
4. The Site contains a 3-storey Victorian building (c.1886) originally built as a warehouse (at lower levels) and stables for 190 horses (at upper floors) for the Great Northern Railway Company. The building’s façade is composed of a variety of individual sections of walls and punctuated by freely grouped single or pairs of standard windows and single or double-storey arched openings; elevation displays an elegant curve following the turn from Clerkenwell Road into Turnmill Street. The building is largely clad in a pale brick over a plinth of Staffordshire blue brick, red brick dressing for lintels and arches.
5. The building is part vacant and has established use rights as a nightclub, gym and office storage at basement level (presently vacant); a restaurant at ground floor level fronting Clerkenwell Road together internal service yard to Turnmill Street and office floorspace at ground, mezzanine and remaining upper levels (varying degrees of vacancy).
6. The Site lies within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, falls within an Archaeological Priority Area and the Clerkenwell/Smithfield Area of Special Character.
7. The existing building on the Site is not a statutory listed building nor is it noted on the council’s register of locally listed buildings.
Surroundings
8. Beyond Turnmill Street to the west can be found the expansive Farringdon railway cutting. To the south is no. 65-66 Turnmill Street, a Victorian office building which is separated from the subject building by a narrow street known as Broad Yard. To the east can be found Fleet House, 57-61 Clerkenwell Road a 5-storey office building behind which is the large servicing / circulation area at the head of Broad Yard. North of the site beyond Clerkenwell Road is the grade II* listed building known as the former Middlesex Session House, 120a-122 Clerkenwell Road (for the ease of reference hereafter referred to as ‘Session’s House’). To the north east is the grade II listed Cornwell House, 20-21 Clerkenwell Green and 120 Clerkenwell Road. The area is characterised by a wide variety of uses and building types.
9. The fabric of the surrounding area derives from incremental development dating from Norman times to the present day, with surviving examples of buildings from nine different centuries. The character of the area also depends on its great variety of uses including specialist manufacturing, workshops, wholesaling and retailing activities. The juxtaposition of different activities, cheek by jowl, sets Clerkenwell and Smithfield apart from more homogenous business and residential areas. There is a predominance of buildings within the conservation area of three to five storeys, although there are some examples of taller buildings. The network of streets, alleys and spaces which make up the conservation area are lined by buildings with generally narrow frontages. The Site forms part of an urban block with generally wider than usual plot widths for this part of Clerkenwell / Farringdon.
10. A medium sized street tree stands within the pavement in front of the site at Clerkenwell Road and is the only street tree at this point of Clerkenwell Road.
Proposal (in Detail)
11. It is proposed that there shall be ‘Demolition of the existing building and erection of a six storey building, plus basement with mezzanine level and roof top plant enclosure, providing for a total of 9,703 sq.m (GEA) of floorspace with 6,834 sq.m (GEA) for business (Class B1)and 2,869 sq.m (GEA) of flexible shop/restaurant/café/drinking establishment floorspace (Class A1/A3/A4) together with associated works
Issues
12. The main issues arising from this proposal relate to the: - Acknowledgement of the previous refused application and the conclusions of the Planning Inspector within the dismissed appeal decision notice. - previous grant of planning permission for refurbishment and extension; - demolition of the existing building; - use of the site for mixed use purposes and the type of uses proposed, including their appropriateness for the Clerkenwell and Smithfield / Central London / CAZ location; - quality of the resulting retail, restaurant and office floorspace; - height, scale, design and appearance of the resulting building, its relationship to neighbouring buildings and impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, surrounding streetscenes and the setting of nearby listed buildings; - consideration of the impact on protected views of St. Pauls and the local view (LV1); - impact on neighbouring residential amenity; - accessibility and inclusive design; - sustainability and energy efficiency and renewable energy; - highways and transportation; and - archaeology.
Relevant History of the Site
13. The existing building was erected in 1886-7 to provide warehousing and stables for the Great Northern Railway Co. in association with their main goods depot at Farringdon Station. It was designed by GNR’s Engineer, Richard Johnson. The stables, approached by internal ramps, occupied the two upper floors – the ground floor consisted of a yard (top-lit) within In and Out gateways on Turnmill Street surrounded by ancillary rooms, cranes and hoists. The GNR’s successor, the London and North Eastern Railway, continued to use the building for stabling and warehousing until the mid-1930’s, when it was taken over by Booth’s as warehousing for their wine department up until the 1970’s. Between 1985 and 2008 the building was occupied as a club venue at basement level (known as Turnmills). Externally, the building has been altered little, though it has lost the original pitched roof and clock gable over the Turnmill Street façade. The internal arrangement is entirely changed and all readily noticeable references to its previous use as a stable building have been removed – although there are some scars of the former location of ramps along some sections of internal walls.
14. The site has been the subject of a number of past planning applications and one appeal (Public Inquiry). The following two submissions and appeal are considered particularly relevant to the current proposal (summarised below):
- Joint planning and conservation area consent applications P091493 and P091484 for the ‘Demolition of the existing building and erection of a part 5 to 7-storey building, plus basement with mezzanine level and roof top plant enclosure to provide for 7,717sqm (GEA) of business (Class B1) floorspace and 2,820sqm (GEA) flexible shop/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment (Class A1/A3/A4) floorspace together with associated works’ were REFUSED on 26/11/2009. - Resulting Appeal (Public Inquiry) PINS ref: APP/V5570/A/09/2118166/NWF was DISMISSED on 20/05/2010.
For the ease of reference the above joint planning and conservation area consent application will be referred to as the ‘2010 Appeal Scheme’ or when referring to the Inspector’s decision the ‘2010 Appeal’.
- Planning Application P071986 for the ‘Erection of a 2-storey roof extension with rooftop plant enclosure and alteration and refurbishment of existing building in connection with its use for B1 (office) and A1/A3/A4 (retail/restaurant/bar) use’ was GRANTED on 17/12/2007.
For the ease of reference the above change of use and roof extension application shall hereafter be referred to as the ‘2007 Approval’.
15. In February 2011 the applicant submitted a renewal application (LBI ref P102515), which seeks to extend the life of the ‘2007 approval’ and has yet to be determined. It is not proposed to consider the merits of this application within this report.
Relevant History of Neighbouring Properties
16. Officers are mindful of the following planning permissions to adjoining properties:
66 Turnmill Street: - Planning application and Conservation Area Consent LBI refs. P101468 & P101469 were REFUSED with appeals dismissed for ‘retention of Turnmill Street and part Broad Yard facades and demolition of the remaining building; erection of a 7 storey building (plus basement) for Class B1 (office) use at basement, ground and first floor levels; use of second floor and above as a 16 unit apart hotel’ were dismissed. The Inspector determined the increased scale of the proposed roof extension would dominate the building, erode its well-proportioned façade and side elevation and as a consequence, the poor design and failed to preserve the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Conservation Area.
67 Turnmill Street: - Planning application LBI ref: P02-2773 for the ‘Erection of basement and five storey building with basement and two storey rear section, containing 13 flats in the first to fourth floors of the frontage section and 1430 square metres of office accommodation (Use Class B1)’ was GRANTED on 30-May-2003. This permission has been implemented and the building has been erected.
55 Clerkenwell Road - Planning application LBI ref: 95-0092 for the ‘Erection of new building of 9 floors and basement comprising 37 flats (8 three-bed, 19 two-bed, 10 one-bed) four units for A1, A2, A3 or B1 uses and 27 car parking spaces’ was GRANTED on 08-Jul-1996. This permission has been implemented and the building has been erected.
13-16 Britton Street & 70-75 Turnmill Street (known as ‘Dickens Court’) - Planning application LBI ref: 97-0105 for the ‘Redevelopment of site, retaining the elevations of the vacant office buildings at 13-16 Britton Street and erection of a basement plus 5 storey block, linked via a terrace of six 'mews' two storey houses to a six storey block on Turnmill Street to provide a total of 24x2 bed, 24x1 bed flats, 6x2 bed houses and 778m2 of commercial (A1, A2, A3 or B1) space at basement and ground floor on Britton Street and ground floor on Turnmill Street; provision of a 63 space underground car park at two levels, accessed from Turnmill Street with amenity courtyard above.’ was GRANTED on 20-Mar-1998. This permission has been implemented and the building has been erected.
Fleet House, 57-61 Clerkenwell Road - Planning application LBI ref: 95-1651 for the ‘Renewal of unimplemented planning permission (89/1581) granted 26.09.90 for the erection of a 5,189 sq.m. basement and five storey office building (B1)’ was GRANTED on 09-Jan-1996. This permission has been implemented and the building has been erected.
96-100 Clerkenwell Road - Planning Application LBI ref: P101292 for the ‘Demolition of an existing structure and erection of a 7-storey mixed use building containing Class A & B uses, 8 residential flats and an electricity sub-station’ together with an accompanying application for Conservation Area Consent LBI ref. P101349 are currently being considered by the Council and have not yet been determined.
CONSULTATION
Public Consultation
17. Letters were sent to occupants of 283 adjoining and nearby properties at Clerkenwell Road, Farringdon Road, Turnmill Street, Britton Street, Clerkenwell Green and Dickens Mews on 23/03/2011. A site notice and press advert were displayed on 31/03/2011. The public consultation of the application therefore expired on 21/04/2011, however it is the Council’s practice to continue to consider representations made up until the date of a decision.
18. At the time of the writing of this report a total of 19 responses had been received from neighbours and the wider public with regard to the planning application and the conservation area consent application which were consulted on together. Notwithstanding the requirement for distinct reports for each application it is proposed to summarise the issues raised in the public representations as a whole in this report. A summary of the objections which specifically relate to the loss of the building will be set down within the accompanying Conservation Area Consent application LBI ref. P0110393. The issues raised representations received can be summarised as follows:
- The replacement building is too large given its context and will harm the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area; - The replacement building by reason of its excessive height, bulk and mass will harm the setting of the Grade II* listed Sessions House; - The new building is of low quality and negatively impacts on neighbouring built form; - The proposal represent the loss of a local heritage asset as set out in PPS5 - The benefits of any proposed new building do not outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the existing building, harm to the Conservation Area or the setting of the Sessions House; - The case for re-use or remodelling of the existing building not being economically viable remains unconvincing; - The building exceeds the height limit of 5 storeys as recommended in Islington Council’s Design Guidelines and exceeds the stipulated limit for a single building of 3,000 sqm; - Any replacement building should incorporate the existing façade; - The new building displays inappropriate detailing namely in respect to window framing, corner treatment and the absence of bays, the latter of which are particular to the warehouses and earlier commercial buildings in Clerkenwell; - The site is located within a strategic part of Clerkenwell and the building has played a significant part in the regeneration of Clerkenwell. Such buildings help distinguish its historic and visual character and therefore restoration of the existing building should be a priority; - The building is occupied by small businesses and contributes to the range of business premises found in the Clerkenwell area; - The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site; - The development will deleteriously impact on light to nearby premises and does not comply with relevant Council amenity planning policies on privacy and overlooking; - The accompanying acoustics report submitted with the application is obsolete;
19. The above summary includes commentary made by SAVE Britain’s Heritage who have objected to the proposals ‘in the strongest terms’.
External Consultees
20. Crossrail raised no objection to the proposals confirming that the site is located outside the limits of land subject to consultation by the Safeguarding Direction.
21. English Heritage has provided extensive comments on the merits of the proposed replacement building and on the accompanying case for demolition of the existing building. The English Heritage letter is appended to this report at Appendix 3. As indicated earlier in this report full consideration of the case for demolition is included within the Conservation Area Consent application.
22. English Heritage assert that under PPS5, should the case be made for demolition, Policy HE10 requires that any replacement building should preserve those elements that contribute positively to the setting of the adjacent Grade II* listed former Middlesex Sessions House or better reveal its significance. The replacement building should also, in accordance with Policy HE7.5, make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. English Heritage also note Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) which sets out the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment.
23. English Heritage note that should the Council consider the demolition of the existing building to be justified under PPS5 HE9 there remains the duty to ensure that the new development enhances the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment, in this case the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and the settings of the nearby listed buildings. They acknowledge the ‘skill and established track record’ of Piercey Connor Architects’ noting that the current proposals are a ‘significant improvement over the previous proposals, and go some way towards addressing the issues relating to new design in the historic context set out by the Planning Inspector in his appeal decision report’.
24. Whilst welcoming the reduction in height and ‘improved’ design English Heritage indicate that they remain concerned about the impact of the proposed new building on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on the setting of Sessions House. They suggest that presently the Sessions House ‘punctuates the consistently lower skyline around it and its location at the head of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area announces its historically high civic status’. They add that from a number of existing vantage points the Sessions House dominates the view with buildings either side supporting this composition. It is also English Heritage’s view that the new building fails to form a recessive element in the townscape and that by virtue of its size, form and design ‘would upset the aforementioned composition with the fomer Middlesex Sessions House as the dominant architectural element’. They add that the new building would assert itself in the townscape causing serious harm to the setting of Sessions House and the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. In that respect the building would conflict with Policies HE7.5 and HE10 of PPS5. English Heritage add that they are unaware of any further benefit which would outweigh the harm that has been identified.
25. English Heritage (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service) note that the site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area and although raising no objection to the proposals request that a condition and informative be attached to any permission relating to submission and approval of a written scheme of investigation and an archaeological project design.
26. London Borough of Camden raised no objection to the proposals.
27. London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority raised no objection to the proposals.
28. London Underground raised no objection in principle however requested that a condition be attached to any planning permission to ensure construction methodology statements pertaining to below ground works are provided to and approved by the Council.
29. Thames Water raised no objection in principle however requested that an appropriate piling method statement be attached to any planning permission and that this should be submitted and approved by the Council.
30. Thameslink 2000 provided no response.
31. Transport for London (TfL) offer no objection in principle to the proposal concluding that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on the transport network. They do request that future occupants are prevented from applying for parking permits and are required to submit and have approved a full travel plan through a Section 106 agreement. A condition requiring submission and approval of a Delivery and Servicing Plan has also been requested.
32. The Victorian Society noted that the Turnmill building had high historic significance and continues to make a positive contribution to the historic character of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area. They reiterate earlier views that the existing building should be retained and that its loss would compromise the Conservation Area’s character as a heritage asset as set out in PPS5. They maintain that reuse of the building may be possible and reject the argument that the benefits resulting from any replacement building would justify demolition of the existing building and the harm to the Conservation that would result.
They do acknowledge the reduction in scale and height of the proposal set against the ‘2010 Appeal Scheme’ however still maintain that the new building through its massing and ‘modern character’ would ‘compete’ with and ‘dominate’ the Grade II* Middlesex Sessions House to the north.
Internal Consultees
33. The Council’s Access Officer has no objection in principle welcoming increased natural surveillance that the proposal would allow. However alterations to the main entrance arrangement has been requested based largely on the revolving doors which are not considered accessible. In addition the proposed retail unit doors are considered too large and potentially problematical. Other minor suggested amendments relate to removing doors in common areas where possible and enhancing further, wheelchair accessibility and facilities. It is envisaged that these matters can be dealt with adequately through condition.
34. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer commenting on the proposed new building acknowledged that height had been reduced from the ‘2010 appeal scheme’, that there was a lighter palette of materials with a more finely grained approach to fenestration detail. The proposal was considered an improvement on the ‘2010 appeal scheme’ and it was noted that extensive dialogue had taken place in order to have the proposal relate better to the Grade II* listed Sessions House and to try instil a more ‘Clerkenwell feel’ to the scheme. Despite this it is the view of the Design and Conservation Team that the ‘building continues to read as a building unfamiliar to Clerkenwell’ with its ‘glazed atrium, open ground floor, repetitive fenestration and general height and appearance add(ing) to the feel of a glossy office building that is without precedent in the conservation area.
It is further the view of the Team that the glazed atrium divides the volume of the building in two with the remaining halved volumes replicating Sessions House in terms of volume. This causes a ‘shift in balance in the townscape from the Sessions House being the centrepiece of the eastern side of the Farringdon viaduct, an architectural standalone set piece, to the Sessions House replicated in Volume either side of Clerkenwell Road.’
35. The Energy Conservation Officer indicated no objection in principle. Further consideration of matters relating to carbon reduction properties of the proposed building, its heating and ventilation provision and the proposed Building Research Establishment Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating are provided later in this report.
36. The Council’s own Highways Engineer offered no objection in principle to the proposals however did provide a number of informatives to be attached to any planning permission relating to the compliance with various sections of the Highways Act 1980, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Islington Council’s Streetbook should there be a need for a Section 278 Highways Agreement.
37. Although Public Protection Division (Noise) were not consulted it is proposed that given their in-principle support for the last scheme, a similar standard condition relating to the acceptable operation of fixed plant together with attendant S106 Clauses would be appropriate.
38. Public Protection Division (Land Contamination) offered no objection to the proposals.
39. The Council’s Spatial Plan Transport Officer raised no objection in principle however did refer to the public realm improvements that will take place on Turnmill Street as Network Rail gradually complete works on Farringdon Station. Consultation on these improvements is about to occur and proposals are likely to include the conversion of some car parking bays to delivery bays. The applicant’s Transport Assessment acknowledges this matter.
40. Street Environment Division (Waste) raised no objection;
41. The Council’s Sustainability Officer raised no objection in principle however did suggest a number of conditions relating to water recycling, the proposed bio-diverse roof and sustainable urban drainage.
RELEVANT POLICIES
National Guidance
42. The following national and regional guidance is considered particularly relevant to this application: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG13 Transport PPG16 Archaeology PPS22 Renewable Energy PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise
Draft National Planning Policy Statement
Development Plan
43. The Development Plan is comprised of the London Plan 2011, the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and saved policies of the Islington Unitary Development Plan (2002). The following policies of the Development Plan are considered relevant to this application:
London Plan 2011 - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London
Context and strategy 5.8 Innovative energy technologies 1.1 Delivering the strategic vision and 5.9 Overheating and cooling objectives for London 5.11 Green roofs and development site London’s places environs 2.1 London in its global, European and 5.13 Sustainable drainage United Kingdom context 5.14 Water quality and wastewater 2.9 Inner London infrastructure 2.10 Central Activities Zone – strategic 5.15 Water use and supplies priorities 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency 2.11 Central Activities Zone – strategic 5.17 Waste capacity functions 5.18 Construction, excavation and 2.12 Central Activities Zone – demolition waste predominantly local activities 5.21 Contaminated land London’s economy London’s transport 4.1 Developing London’s economy 6.1 Strategic approach 4.2 Offices 6.2 Providing public transport capacity 4.3 Mixed use development and offices and safeguarding land for transport 4.11 Encouraging a connected economy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on 4.12 Improving opportunities for all transport capacity London’s response to climate change 6.4 Enhancing London’s transport 5.1 Climate change mitigation connectivity 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions 6.5 Funding Crossrail and other 5.3 Sustainable design and construction strategically important transport 5.7 Renewable energy infrastructure 6.7 Better streets and surface transport 6.9 Cycling 6.10 Walking 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion 6.12 Road network capacity 6.13 Parking
London’s living places and spaces 7.2 An inclusive environment 7.3 Designing out crime 7.4 Local character 7.5 Public realm 7.6 Architecture 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology 7.9 Heritage-led regeneration 7.11 London View Management Framework 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework 2 7.13 Safety, security and resilience to emergency 7.14 Improving air quality 7.15 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
Islington Core Strategy 2011
Spatial Strategy Policy CS13 (Employment Spaces) Policy CS7 (Bunhill and Clerkenwell) Policy CS14 (Retail and Services)
Strategic Policies Infrastructure and Implementation Policy CS9 (Protecting and Enhancing Policy CS18 (Delivery and Islington’s Built and Historic Environment) Infrastructure) Policy CS10 (Sustainable Design) Policy CS19 (Health Impact Policy CS11 (Waste) Assessments)
Islington Unitary Development Plan (2002)
Environment Policies: Sustainable Transport Policies: Env5 (Protecting Trees) T18 (Parking and Traffic Restraint) Env12 (Community Safety) T32 (On-Street Servicing) Env15 Small Children and their Carers) T34 (Cycle Parking) Env17 (Protection of Amenity) T45 (Land Use Planning) Env24 (New Wildlife Habitats) T47 (Streetscape) T49 (Meeting the Needs of People with Shopping & Town Centres Polices: Mobility Problems) S27 (New Retail Developments Serving T52 (Facilities for Cyclists) Local Needs) T55 (New Development) S29 (Access to Shops) S31 (A2 and A3 Uses) Implementation Policies: Imp5 (Mixed Use) Conservation and Design Policies: Imp6 (Efficient Use) D3 (Site Planning) Imp13 (Community Benefits) D4 (Designing in Context) Imp14 (Central London) D5 (Townscape) Imp15 (Clerkenwell/Smithfield) D6 & 7 (Landscape and Public Facilities) D8 (Boundary Walls, Paving and Street Clerkenwell/Smithfield Special Policy Furniture) Area Policies: D13 (Shopfronts) CS1 (Business Use) D17 (Local Views) CS2 (Residential Use) D20 (Land Use) CS3 (Control Over Demolition) D21 (Control Over Demolition) CS5 (New Development) D22 (New Development) CS7 (Building Scale) D24 (Materials) CS8 (Street Pattern) D43 (Archaeological Heritage) CS10 (Materials) D44 (Important Archaeological Remains) CS11 (The Streetscene) D45 (Archaeological Assessment and CS14 (Environmental Improvements) Evaluation) CS16 (Parking and Traffic) D46 (Preservation in-situ of Archaeological Remains) Economic Regeneration Policies: D47 (Archaeological excavation and E1 & 2 (Business Development) Recording) E3 (Mixed Use in Business Schemes) E16 (Local Recruitment and Training)
Designations
44. The site has the following designations under the 2011 London Plan and retained elements of the Islington Unitary Development Plan (2002):
- Archaeological Priority Area; - Central Activities Zone (CAZ); - Area of Special Character; - Farringdon/Smithfield Area of - Buildings and Structures which should Intensification; be retained; - Within 100m of TfL Road; - Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area; - Within 200m of Crossrail; - Local view from: Farringdon/ - Within 200m of Thameslink 2000; Clerkenwell Rds; Archway Rd; Archway - (opposite) Grade II* listed: Former bridge; Dartmouth Park Hill; Middlesex Session House, 120, 120a- - View Consult Area: Kenwood; 122 Clerkenwell Road; Parliament Hill; - (opposite) Grade II listed grade II listed: - Kenwood Strategic View Corridor; Cornwell House, 20-21 Clerkenwell - North London Sub-Region; Green and 120 Clerkenwell Road
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) / Document (SPD)
45. The following SPG’s and/or SPD’s are relevant:
Islington UDP London Plan - Conservation Area Design Guidelines - Accessible London: Achieving and - Green Construction Inclusive Environment - Planning Obligations and S106 - Sustainable Design & Construction - Urban Design Guide - Planning for Equality and Diversity in London
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
EIA application
46. Planning applications for development that are covered by Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations are termed ‘EIA applications’. The requirement for an EIA is based on the likelihood of environmental effects arising from the development. EIA applications are divided into Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 applications under EIA Regulations which govern all applications after the 14/03/1999.
47. Screening Opinion A screening opinion was issued under delegated powers on 04/03/2011. The screening opinion determined, having regard to the characteristics and location of the development that its size, form, siting is not likely to result in the development having a significant effect on the local environment, or fall within the 3 main types of cases that necessitate an EIA pursuant to the 1999 Regulations. The development is therefore not considered to be an EIA application and an Environmental Statement pursuant to EIA Regulations is not required.
THE 2010 APPEAL SCHEME (P091493) AND CURRENT (P110392) APPLICATIONS
Refusal and subsequent appeal of P091493
48. Members of the South Area Planning Sub-Committee considered the previous planning application LBI ref: P091493 and conservation area application LBI ref: P091484 at the committee meeting held on the 12-Dec-2009 and resolved to refuse planning permission for the following reason:
‘REASON: The proposed development by virtue of its excessive height, scale and bulk would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, the surrounding streetscenes, the setting of the neighbouring grade II* listed building known as the ‘former Middlesex Session’s House’ and the protected Local View (LV1) of St Paul’s Cathedral’.
49. The applicant chose to appeal the decision to refuse the planning application (and the joint conservation area consent application P091484) and the appeal was heard at Public Inquiry (4 days) from 20/04/2010 until 23/04/2010. The Planning Inspector in considering the case dismissed the appeal on 20/05/2010.
50. The Inspector’s conclusions with specific reference to the full application P091493 are summarised below (the key elements of 2010 Appeal shall be quoted later in this report):
‘The proposed replacement building would be taller than the present one and taller than its immediate surroundings. That height would, I find, appear out of place and harm the conservation area, the setting of a Grade II* listed building and fail to respond appropriately to the townscape and to the character of adjoining buildings.’
Comparison of the Proposal and 2010 Appeal
51. In response to the Inspectors conclusions of the 2010 Appeal the proposed building has been significantly revised with a reduction in height and a refinement to the elevations. This has resulted in a reduction in floorspace set against the 2010 Appeal Scheme. A visual representation of the proposed changes together with a schedule showing currently proposed floorspace against that provided in the 2010 scheme can be seen below.
Table 1.0 – Schedule of Accommodation (2010 Appeal Scheme / Proposed)
Land Use 2010 Appeal Proposed + / - change GEA (sqm) GEA (sqm) GEA (sqm) Business/Office (B1) 7,717 6,834 - 883 Flexible Uses: shop 2,820 2,869 + 49 /restaurant /drinking establishment (A1/A3/A4) Total 10,537 9,703 - 834
EVALUATION
Land-use
52. The existing building on the Site provides for business (B1) floorspace at upper floors and part basement, night-club (sui-generis) use at basement and shop / restaurant (A1/ /A3) floorspace use at ground and basement levels. Overall the existing building provides for a total of 6,759sqm business/commercial floorspace. The accommodation is at varying degrees of vacancy.
53. The proposal suggests the complete demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new 6-storey building. The proposed development would provide open plan business (Class B1) accommodation at upper levels with flexible commercial uses (Class A1, A3 & A4) within two units at ground and basement levels. The amount of accommodation is shown in the following table:
Table 2.0 – Schedule of Accommodation (Existing / Proposed)
Land Use Existing Proposed + / - change GEA (sqm) GEA (sqm) GEA (sqm) Business/Office (B1) 4,532 6,834 + 2,302 Flexible Uses: shop 426 2,869 + 2,443 /restaurant /drinking establishment (A1/A3/A4) Night-club (sui-generis) 1,801 0 - 1,801 Total 6,759 9,703 + 2,944
54. The application site is within the London Plan ‘Central Activities Zone’ and that part of the borough covered by the Council’s emerging ‘Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan’. Both of the above nominate this part of the borough as a priority area for regeneration and for growth in employment generating uses. Overall the mix of land- uses suggested are considered appropriate for the site and support the policy aims and objectives of the London Plan for the improvement and development of the CAZ.
55. The broad range of resulting uses proposed is expected to increase the variety and type of employment opportunities created for the Site; ranging from maintenance and customer service roles through to managerial appointments within differing sectors.
56. Business/Office Accommodation The re-development proposal would result in an increase in business/office (B1) accommodation from 4,532sqm to 6,834sqm – an increase of 2,302sqm (GEA). Retrained Policy E4 of the Islington UDP and CS13 of the Islington Core Strategy seek to prevent the reduction of business floorspace and this is particularly the case for buildings originally built for, or sites considered best suited to business purposes located within the CAZ.
57. It is estimated that the proposed redevelopment scheme could provide space for up to 619 employees (B1 = 484: A1/A3/A4 = 135), which is significantly more than the approximate 350 employees who could be accommodated within the existing building (if it were fully occupied). These figures have been calculated using industry accepted formula devised and adopted by the Homes and Community Agency in 2010.
58. The proposed business/office accommodation is of a flexible, modern open-plan design and is considered to cater for a broad range of (B1) business/office purposes. Proposed floor to ceiling heights would be of a suitable 3.0m + clearance and the new building would be easily serviced from the street (refer to paragraphs 152 – 154). The accommodation is to be to a high specification and would be attractive to a broad range of B1 occupiers in contrast to the existing accommodation much of which has remained vacant for long periods.
59. Flexible Use Accommodation The proposal would provide a total of 2,869sqm of flexible shop/restaurant/drinking establishment (A1/A3/A4) floorspace. At present the building contains both shop (A1) and restaurant/café (A3) accommodation covering a total area of 426sqm. The scheme would result in an additional 2,443sqm of commercial ‘retail’ floorspace.
60. Flexibility is sought for the ground/basement units for an end use as either A1 (shop), A3 (restaurant/café) or A4 (drinking establishment). Permitting flexible use would allow the resulting floorspace to change between the agreed uses for a period of 10 years from the date of planning permission. Once the 10 year period has lapsed the use of the floorspace at that time becomes the established use of the accommodation and there is no longer a right of flexibility.
61. The provision of non-B1 units fronting Clerkenwell Road and Turnmill Street is welcomed. The units are considered to have a positive impact on the surrounding townscape by providing active frontages which engage with the street in an open and welcoming manner. This provision is assisted by the double height glazed shopfronts, and multiple entrance points. The resulting interaction at ground floor level is considered to be a significant improvement over the situation offered by the existing building. Given the Site’s Central London location, the advent of Crossrail at Farringdon Station and the existing medium-to-high level footfall to surroundings streets it is considered that any of the proposed flexible uses would be appropriate within the resulting development.
62. The scheme has been assessed on the basis of the land-uses and size of units proposed. Consequently, in the interest of preventing the creation of a significantly large basement/ground floor commercial unit, which could potentially have a different impact that has not assessed as part of this application; a condition is attached (condition 8) which prevents the amalgamation of the two commercial units. In the interest of maintaining ground floor frontages which are open and welcoming, as mentioned above, a condition is attached (condition 9) which prevents the obscuring of the shopfronts but future tenants.
63. Clerkenwell/Smithfield The site falls within the Clerkenwell/Smithfield Special Policy Area and as such is subject to the specific policies within Chapter 14 of the Islington UDP – in strictly land-use terms policy CS1 is relevant. The other policies of Chapter 14 are design based and are considered within the Design section of this report. Policy CS1 requires: - that B1 schemes allocate a proportion of resulting floorspace to uses other than unfettered class B1 use. - There should be no loss of B1 floorspace; - Existing non-B1 uses at ground floor street frontages should be retained; and new non-B1 uses will be encouraged at ground floor street frontages where they do not currently exist.
64. The development proposes an increase in business (B1) floorspace. The scheme allocates, as a proportion of total floorspace, a total of 30% (2,869sqm) as non-B1 uses (flexible A1/A3/A4 use). This space is provided as separate units split over part- ground and basement level and occupying the majority of the Turnmill Street and Clerkenwell Road street frontages. The proposal would provide an active street-frontage with double height frontages.
65. The proposal is considered to appropriately respond to the land-use policy CS1. A condition is attached (condition 10), which removed permitted development rights to change the use of the ground floor flexible units from A3/A4 to A2 (financial and professional services). This condition is considered necessary as an A2 use, being so similar to B1 use, would have a similar negative impact on the streetscene by failing to provide a suitable level of vitality.
66. CAZ and Mixed Use It is a key objective of PPS1 to deliver sustainable development to optimise the potential of development sites to accommodate, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses. Mixed use development is important in ensuring that a range of needs can be met through new development, enabling efficient use of spaces while contributing to the vitality of an area. UDP Policy E3 also requires that a mix of uses is proposed in significant new office developments. London Plan Policy 2.11A states that whenever increases in office floorspace are proposed in the CAZ they should provide for a mix of uses, including housing.
67. The Council’s 2009 Planning Obligations SPD echoes the above requirements for an appropriate mix of uses on development sites within the CAZ. It specifically references the then London Plan Policy 3B.3 (now Policy 2.11A) which states that wherever increases in office floorspace are proposed in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) they should provide for a mix of uses including housing in addition to other ‘active’ ground floor uses.
68. The applicant has explored the potential for the provision of an element of residential accommodation within the scheme, however, it is apparent that the resulting accommodation is likely to be compromised in terms of layout and access to daylight. The resulting accommodation also appears inefficient in terms of its net to gross value and would place undue pressure on the scheme’s viability.
69. The proposal is considered to accord with the mix-use and CAZ policies for securing appropriate land-uses within new developments in Farringdon and the CAZ. It is acknowledged that the current proposal does not include an element of housing. However, this is not considered objectionable in this particular instance because of the reasons set out above. A contribution for affordable housing in lieu of any on-site provision has however been secured within the accompanying Section 106.
70. Loss of Existing Nightclub Use Nightclubs have a ‘sui-generis’ use class, which means they fall within a class of their own pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Use Class) Order 1987. ‘Turnmills’ nightclub previously operated from the basement level of the existing building and the new building proposed does not suggest the provision of night-club floorspace. The principle of the loss of the night-club floorspace is considered to have been established by the 2007 Approval, which also suggested the omission of the night-club floorspace.
71. As confirmed within the 2007 Approval report, it is noted that the Development Plan (which consists of the UDP and the London Plan) does not contain any policies or guidance which protect nightclub uses or prevent a changes of use away from them. In light of this policy context the loss of the existing nightclub is not considered to conflict with the Development Plan.
72. Retail Assessment The planning application submission was not accompanied by a formal Retail Assessment (RA). It is considered that a RA is not necessary given: - the site’s Central London location; - its significant distance from either of the designated Islington Town Centres (Angel and Nag’s Head) and the minimal impact the proposal is likely to have on these Town Centres; - the desire to encourage non-B1 in the Clerkenwell/Smithfield Area (UDP policy CS1); and - the proposed increase of retail provision is less than 2,500sqm. Policy 14.4 of Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) necessitates submission of a supporting Impact Assessment normally only where this threshold is reached.
73. Placement and Local Procurement The borough is reported to be the 6th most deprived local authority in England and has above average levels of unemployment. Increasing opportunities for employment and reducing deprivation is an essential part of developing socially sustainable communities within Islington. The most common barriers to employment that people experience in the borough are most notably the lack of skills to meet the needs of the employment market. In response to this the applicant has agreed to a clause within the S106 agreement requiring compliance with the Council’s Code of Employment and Training and securing 4 onsite work placements during the construction phase of the development. These initiatives are viewed as an essential part of developing socially sustainable communities, especially in the growing and intensifying community in which the development is located. The placements and contribution have been secured within the S106 agreement.
74. In addition, the applicant has agreed to a clause requiring the development comply with the Council’s Code of Local Procurement to ensure that the procurement of goods and services through the construction phase allows for opportunities for local businesses to tender for these, thereby supporting local businesses and regeneration opportunities.
75. Conclusion on Land-Use In light of the above analysis, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for this site in terms of the quantum, mix and quality of business and flexible uses proposed. It is considered the development would foster the aims and objectives of the relevant CAZ, employment land and mixed use policies within the London Plan, Islington’s Core Strategy and UDP and the emerging Clerkenwelll and Bunhill Area Action Plan.
Conservation and Design
76. This section of the report considers the design issues associated with the new building including its impact on the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, surrounding townscape and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. This report does not include analysis of the of the case for the demolition of the existing building, the impact this would have on the conservation area, surrounding townscape or the acceptability of the loss with respect to PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) or any relevant local or regional heritage policies – full consideration of that matter is provided separately within the accompanying conservation area consent (LBI ref. P110393) also recommended for approval.
77. A description of the site, the existing site building and surroundings is provided earlier in this report at paragraphs 3 – 10. Collective history of the site is considered at paragraphs 13 -15. The site is located within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area, immediately to the south of the grade II* listed Sessions House and south west of the grade II listed Cornwell House.
78. Layout, Scale and Design As with the existing building the proposed new building would occupy the entire site and be visible on three elevations with the fourth elevation consisting a party wall with Fleet House to the east (57-61 Clerkenwell Road). The main pedestrian and vehicular access to the office/business element of the proposed building will be on Turnmill Street with entrances to the proposed retail/restaurant units on both Turnmill Street and Clerkenwell Road. The larger retail /restaurant unit will have dual aspect on both of the above thoroughfares. The building’s core is located deep into the floorplate against the party wall. This is partly a result of the introduction of a large void within the building which provides more natural light into the floorplates, breaks up the western elevation on Turnmill Street and effectively creates distinct northern and southern elements to the proposal.
79. The proposed building has a height of six storeys together with basement space with the uppermost floor being considerably set back and largely glazed. There will be plant enclosure on top of this set back uppermost storey but this will be set back against the party wall with Fleet House to the east and will not be seen from street level. The roof of the sixth storey will feature two biodiverse areas (green roofs) and photovoltaic provision.
80. In assessing the merits of any new building careful consideration should be given to the Planning Inspector’s comments forwarded within his report into the ‘2010 Appeal Scheme’. Amongst those design matters raised in his report were the need for any replacement building to acknowledge and properly address the townscape relationship with the immediate context in terms of height and built volume and middle distance views across the railway cutting to the west. Also referred to was the need to avoid an ‘overbearing’ presence or emphasis on the corner site of Turnmill Street and Clerkenwell Road which could damage the setting of the Sessions House, the large areas of glazing which were not characteristic of buildings in the conservation area and the need to provide a finer grained treatment of elevations.
81. Comments from officers to the applicant both during pre-submission meetings and workshops echoed the above reiterating that this site and surrounding townscape were atypical of the majority of Clerkenwell with its pervading warehouse aesthetic and that the architectural treatment of the 2010 Appeal Scheme has been too ‘heavy’ with the windows in particular being too large and prominent.
82. Bearing in mind the above referred meetings and Inspector’s comments on the 2010 Appeal Scheme it is considered the following design parameters inform the current proposal:-
The Sessions House should remain as the centre piece to the composition across the cutting, as viewed from the west with a balanced townscape to the north and south; The need to reconsider the height and dominance of the appeal scheme at the corner of Turnmill Street and Clerkenwell Road; The need to consider ways of reducing the repetition of the long façade along Turnmill Street; The need to introduce a finer grained façade with less glazing which would help to reduce the excessively assertive nature of the appeal scheme and dominance over the Sessions House; The need to reference other Clerkenwell buildings to explore the possibility of a decorative parapet and a set back roof. The need to introduce a palette of materials which should reflect in tone the lighter colours of the building group headed by Sessions House and Cornwell House off Clerkenwell Green.
83. Height and Massing There has been a reduction of one floor from the 2010 Appeal Scheme. In addition the proposed set back storey is significantly further away from street than was the case with the 2010 Appeal Scheme. In measurement terms at the north west corner a reduction of 3.9 metres has been achieved in the respective heights of the brick parapets while there has been a 5.7 metre reduction in height as taken from the top of respective uppermost glazed storey. The aforementioned enhanced setback of the top storey at this strategic corner ranges from 2.5 metres to 5.5 metres. In overall terms the height of the north west corner parapet is 18.2 metres which is 1.3 metres lower than the planning permission allowed in 2007 and 3.9 metres lower than the 2010 Appeal Scheme provided. With a significantly different palette of materials proposed and finer building grain and fenestration detail, which is considered later in the report , officers are of the view that these alterations help to significantly reduce the overbearing nature of the 2010 Appeal Scheme.
84. This reduction in height and massing allows the Sessions House to retain its role as the centrepiece of the wider townscape composition especially when viewed from the west look east along Clerkenwell Road. The proposal is considered less assertive than was previously the case respecting scale, form and character of not just the Sessions House but of the all buildings on the eastern side of the Fleet Valley particularly those on the main elevations of Clerkenwell Road and Turnmill Street. The Inspector specifically referred to this longer view when outlining his concern that ‘the view across the open space of the railway cutting would allow this incongruous relationship (that of the 2010 Appeal Scheme to the Sessions House) to be seen and the degree of harm appreciated’. Significantly the Inspector also noted that the 2010 Appeal Scheme’s sloped parapet which was proposed to reconcile the higher corner site with the lower level buildings towards Farringdon Station takes the balance of the aforementioned longer view away from the Sessions House and towards more recent buildings on Turnmill Street. The current proposal because of its lower height has no requirement for a sloping parapet, presents a more regular and subtle presence thereby allowing the Sessions House to maintain prominence.
85. In addition to the reduced height, the retention of the Turnmill Street atrium entrance is also welcomed. It, together with the proposed active frontages further breaks up what could be a rather monotonous façade on a street which only has one side and will become increasingly busy with pedestrians with the advent of Crossrail later in the decade. The curved entrance also allows views into the building for pedestrians and this feature was one which the Inspector welcomed in his 2010 appeal report.
86. The applicant has also submitted detailed analysis of a range of townscape views set around the site. In terms of looking west along Clerkenwell Road it is considered that the proposal introduces an appropriate amount of verticality to the site and a finer, more defined grain than the existing buildings along the south side of Clerkenwell Road. The light tone of the masonry complements that of the Sessions House and 91/93 Farringdon Road further to the west. The set back floor is barely visible and the parapet line sits comfortably with that of the adjacent Fleet House (Nos 57 – 61 Clerkenwell Road).
87. Looking south along Farringdon Lane it is the view of officers that the restrained nature of the proposed façades protects the prominence of the Sessions House with its much finer articulation. Furthermore the proposal articulates the corner site appropriately and its two-part design breaks down the overall massing along Turnmill Street.
88. A further view, chosen in consultation with English Heritage, is that looking east from a traffic island set at the junction of Clerkenwell Road and Farringdon Road. The analysis demonstrates that the Sessions House sits as the centre of the composition with the proposal to the south balancing the townscape along Farringdon Road to the north. Clerkenwell Road creates a significant axis and separation between the proposed scheme and the listed building. With the reduction in height of the proposed scheme it is the view of officers that the Sessions House retains its role at the centre of the composition. The parapet height is higher than the parapet of Sessions House but significantly lower than that of the 2010 appeal scheme. The palette of materials is shown to be sympathetic and the ground floor commercial units animate both Clerkenwell Road and Turnmill Street.
89. Grain and Fenestration The scale and mass of a building can be addressed through a combination of measures. Again in response to the Inspector’s comments and those of officers in the pre-application meetings the proposal features a tighter, more vertical grain to its facades. This enhanced emphasis on verticality is considered to respect and acknowledge the grain of the group of buildings adjacent to the Sessions House, Cornwell House and other buildings to the north of the site.
90. Notwithstanding the more respectful fenestration pattern proposed, Clerkenwell is noted for its period buildings often featuring architectural idiosyncrasies. This arguably distinguishes it from the West end and The City. In acknowledgement of this the proposal slices window reveals on plan at various angles creating a number of different window treatments within the grid and breaking down repetition. The reveal angle changes will enhance views from within the building and will continue to ground level further emphasising the new verticality of the building.
91. Palette and Materials Although finer details regarding external materials are conditioned a concerted attempt has been made by the applicant to address concerns raised by officers pertaining to the 2010 appeal scheme pallette. It was considered that the proposed use of dark brickwork reinforced the building’s mass and overbearing nature and further impacted deleteriously on the setting of Sessions House.
92. The proposed new palette works with a less assertive, less contrasting selection of brick tones. The proposed high specification Danish brick (Peterson Kolumba) is proposed to sit easily with the variations in light stone colour of the Sessions House.
93. A strong parapet line is provided with decorative perforations and cast masonry capping. The parapet line indicates where the middle of the building ends and the top commences. The lightweight upper part of the building features occasional solid and semi - opaque panels behind ‘high performance’ glazing. The sixth floor’s set back nature will ensure it will only be wholly visible in the more distant views from Farringdon Road.
94. Response to English Heritage Earlier in this report a summary of English Heritage’s comments in respect to the merits of the replacement building and potential impact on heritage assets (the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings) were provided. Notwithstanding the fact that English Heritage note that the design ‘goes some way towards addressing the issues relating to new design in the historic context’ the reservations by English Heritage are acknowledged. However officers are minded to take a contrary view to the English Heritage officer and consider the proposed new building to be of a high quality design which has been further refined from the previous 2010 appeal scheme which in part, itself, was viewed favourably by the Inspector and, as referred to in his 2010 report, ‘architects with knowledge of the site’.
95. This assertion is based around a different interpretation of parts of Policies HE7 and HE10 of PPS5.
96. At HE7.5 it is requested ‘that Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment. The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing alignment materials and use’.
97. At HE10.1 it is put forward that ‘ when considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of an asset’.
98. It is considered by officers that the proposed building in its refined, more articulated form will make a wholly positive contribution to the townscape. Careful deliberation has occurred in respect to matters such as scale, height, massing and materials based on the Inspectors comments on the 2010 appeal scheme. Officers are confident that the application scheme through its reduced height, bulk, lighter palette of materials will preserve the setting of both the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and importantly the former Sessions House.
99. The scheme indicates provision of a louvered rooftop plant and lift overrun enclosure adjacent to the party wall with 57-61 Clerkenwell Road. Barely visible at street level there is no objection to the provision of the rooftop enclosure however it is important that the structure is sympathetic to the wider building design. Consequently a condition is attached (condition 6) require submission of louvre detail. It is understood the building would also be secured by a CCTV network. A condition will also be attached (condition 7) requiring details of this provision together with other security or lighting detail.
100. The proposal includes an electrical sub-station at ground floor fronting Broad Yard. The proposed sub-station would be integrated into the proposed new building. The provision of electrical sub-stations within buildings of this size is not uncommon and subject to appropriate treatment and safety measures will have no adverse implications for those working in the building or living nearby. A condition is attached (condition 14) requiring details to be submitted regarding this element of the scheme.
Neighbouring Amenity
101. The Inspector considered the main issues of the 2010 Appeal Scheme to be the effect of the demolition of the existing building and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of listed building – the impact of the 2010 Appeal Scheme on amenity was not considered problematical. As previously noted the proposed scheme is smaller in height/scale and quantum of accommodation than the 2010 Appeal Scheme, it is therefore generally considered to have an improved relationship to surrounding buildings and therefore a further reduced impact on neighbouring amenity.
102. The Site is adjoined by both residential and non-residential properties. The Development Plan contains adopted policy that seeks to safeguard the amenity (habitable rooms only) of adjoining residential properties; no adopted policies exist that seek to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring commercial properties. Consequently this section examines the impact of the proposed development on the existing amenity of neighbouring residential properties and their habitable rooms.
103. The Site is adjoined by office developments immediately to the south (no. 65-66 Turnmill Street) and immediately to the east (Fleet House, 57-61 Clerkenwell Road). The closest residential properties are located within: 55 Clerkenwell Road to the corner of Clerkenwell Road and Britton Street; and Dickens Court which fronts both Turnmill Street and Britton Street. Both of the above mentioned residential developments contain dwellings with windows which overlook the eastern or southern aspects of Broad Yard. The rear east elevation of the resulting building would be located approximately 30m away from nearby residential properties to the opposite side of Broad Yard.
104. Daylight and Sunlight An objection from a flat at 1 Britton Street to the east of the site has been received in relation to the potential loss of daylight as a result of the erection of the proposed 6-storey building. This concern is noted, however, the Site is situated approximately 30m away from existing neighbouring residential windows at Britton Street and it is not therefore considered likely that the development would cause any significant adverse changes to existing daylight or sunlight levels.
105. The application has been accompanied by a specialist daylight and sunlight report which confirms these conclusions and states:
‘… It is clear from the height and distance ratios of the proposed development to these properties [Britton Street and Turnmill Street] that the initial BRE Rule of Thumb tests are satisfied and that it is unnecessary for any further detail numerical tests to be undertaken.’
106. Privacy and Outlook The council’s adopted SPG ‘Planning Standards Guidelines’ recommends that when considering new development a minimum of 18m window to habitable room window separation distance should be provided in order to prevent an undue loss of privacy. The proposed building is to be located sufficiently distant from existing neighbouring habitable room windows, and furthermore the proposed development proposes no windows within its rear (eastern) elevation – therefore the development is not considered to have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of privacy.
107. It is noted that the proposed building would be taller than the current building. However, given the generous distance of the resulting building from neighbouring habitable room windows the additional height is not considered to be particularly harmful to the outlook of those neighbouring properties.
108. Commercial Properties The commercial occupants at 21 Clerkenwell Green have objected due to the potential loss of existing amenity in terms of sunlight, daylight and privacy to existing meeting rooms and terraces. These concerns are noted, however, as mentioned earlier in this report the Development Plan, which comprises the London Plan and Islington UDP contain no policies or guidance protecting commercial amenity.
109. Hours of Operation The site previously operated a 24hr nightclub at basement level. It is not considered that should the proposed retail/restaurant units also open on a 24hr basis that there would be a worsening of the existing impact on neighbouring residential amenity. Given the above view, a restrictive condition relating to hours of operation has not been suggested.
110. No. 67 Turnmill Street This development comprises a 5-storey building fronting Turnmill Street containing ground floor commercial use with 13 flats above together with a 2- storey rear building fronting Broad Yard that is used wholly for office use. Although planning permission was granted in 2009 for various alterations this was the culmination of a number of planning decisions relating to the property. A subsequently renewed permission had established a part-residential use on a number of upper floors as early as 2003.
111. The Site is located due north of no. 67 Turnmill Street and the property at no. 65-66 Turnmill Street stands between the two sites. The residential component of no. 67 is located only within the frontage building facing east-west. The proposed new building, which is the subject of this application, would be located approximately 20m away from 67 Turnmill Street and obscured by no. 65-66 Turnmill Street. The proposed development is not considered to have any adverse impacts on the residential amenity of dwellings at 67 Turnmill Street in terms of loss of light, outlook, privacy or undue creation of enclosure. As the majority of servicing of the proposal shall occur from an on-street servicing bay the development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the 2-storey rear office building of no. 67 Turnmill Street.
112. Noise In the interest of maintaining a suitable residential environment a condition is attached (condition 12) which limits the noise emissions from any fixed plant.
113. Extract Flues The scheme proposes the creation of two of flexible (A1/A3/A4) units at part basement and ground floor level. By their nature A3 and A4 type commercial units could require cooking fume extraction systems, which if poorly sited may have the potential to cause environmental nuisance and impact on amenity. Consequently, a condition is attached (condition 13) requiring the submission of all extraction systems and flues relating to the proposed commercial units.
114. Construction Impacts In the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity during the construction phase of the development, (having regard to impacts such as noise and dust) the applicant has agreed to comply with the Council’s Code of Construction Practice. Compliance has been secured as part of a S106 agreement together with a payment towards the monitoring of the site to ensure its neighbourliness this payment is considered be an acceptable level of contribution having regard to the scale of the development, the proximity of other properties, and likely duration of the construction project. This clause also requires the submission of a method statement for the construction phase. A separate clause within the S106 requires the submission of a construction traffic management plan.
Local View (LV1) and View Management Framework - St Pauls
115. The site is located adjacent to, but not within the path of Local View (LV1). One of the original reasons for refusal related to the impact of the development on the setting of LV1. The 2010 Appeal considered the impact of the development on LV1 and stated (paragraph 14):
‘The council refer also to Policy D17 on local views and view LV1 of parts of St Paul’s Cathedral is relevant. My opinion is that the view encompasses a sufficient zone either side of the dome to ensure the recognition of the landmark and that this zone reduces the need to protect further the either side. Whilst it might be possible to imagine a situation where a building at the edge of the zone could have a detrimental effect, I do not see that as being the case here. I consider Policy D17 to be satisfied.’
116. The proposed scheme occupies the same footprint, and is of a smaller height/scale as the 2010 Appeal Scheme. Therefore, it is considered that the Inspector’s conclusion on LV1 in relation to the Appeal Scheme is applicable to the current scheme.
117. The 2010 Appeal did not dispute that the Site falls outside the View Management Framework. The current scheme has however been accompanied by a Viewing Corridor Study which provides certified/verified views to establish whether the proposed extension of the existing building would impact on the existing protected views of St. Pauls. The resulting building was considered to sit close to three viewing corridors: Primrose Hill; Parliament Hill and Kenwood, and the Background Assessment Area of the Blackheath and Greenwich Park viewing corridors. The study confirmed that the proposed development would fall comfortably outside all the Background Assessment Areas and the Primrose Hill, Parliament Hill and Kenwood viewing corridors. It is therefore considered that the development would not infringe on any protected views of St. Pauls.
Accessibility
118. Accessibility was not considered to be one of the main issues of the 2010 Appeal Scheme. The current application proposes the same response to access and accessibility as the 2010 Appeal scheme. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the current application including consideration of changes arising due to the Islington Core Strategy.
119. It is the council’s aim to enable people with a disability to lead as fully integrated lives in the community as possible. A truly inclusive society demands an environment in which a diverse population can exist harmoniously and where everyone, regardless of disability, age or gender ethnicity or other circumstances, can participate equally and independently, with choice and dignity. Consequently, it is policy that new developments are designed in accordance with the principles of inclusive design and achieve high standards of accessibility and inclusion.
120. The council’s Access Officer has considered the proposed development and confirmed that the design displays a reasonable understanding of the principles of inclusive design. The provision of level access into the building and the installation of a wheelchair accessible shower as part of the basement level cycle facility are particularly welcome. Also welcome is the total transport contribution of £181,458 which, amongst other matters, will allow conversion of existing on-street parking bays to dedicated disabled parking bays and/or other accessible transport measures. In this regard the applicant has agreed to a clause within the S106 agreement to secure the contribution, which is considered necessary in ensuring that the development complies with adopted policies on accessibility.
121. Notwithstanding the provisions mentioned above, there are a number of amendments still necessary to ensure that the development provides an appropriately accessible and inclusive environment. There are no other equal opportunities issues arising from this case. A condition is attached (condition 11) which require the submission of the following details:
- lift access between the ground and basement commercial units; - main ground floor and retail/restaurant unit street entrances; - provision of 300mm manoeuvring space beyond leading edge of internal doors where necessary; - widening of w.c. corridors to 1500mm where necessary; and - ensure all WC’s are arranged in accordance with nationally recognised guidance
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
122. Both the Council’s and the Mayor’s objectives are clear when considering major development and the significant minimisation of on-site carbon dioxide (C02) emissions by using less energy This can be achieved through maximising energy efficiency, supplying energy efficiently, using low carbon heating and cooling systems (CHP & CCHP) and using on-site renewable energy generation.
123. Policy CS10 of the Council’s Core Strategy stipulates that all major development should achieve an on-site reduction in total C02 emissions of at least 40% unless it can be demonstrated that such provisions is not feasible. This figure rises to 50% where connection to a decentralised energy network is deemed possible. The policy adds that development will be required to offset remaining C02 emissions through a section 106 contribution made on the basis of an established price per tonne of C02. The recently adopted 2011 London Plan at Policy 5.2 (Minimising Carbon Dioxide emissions) echoes the Core Strategy emphasising the established energy hierarchy of using less energy, supplying energy efficiently and using renewable energy (be lean, be clean, be green) and also seeks that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising C02 emissions. For non-domestic buildings an incremental target is provided with the aim of achieving zero-carbon non-domestic buildings from 2019. A 25% reduction in C02 is put forward for buildings between 2010-2013 with the difference from the Council’s own higher figure being explained by the London Plan’s use of the more onerous 2010 Part L building regulations (the Core Strategy refers to the 2006 building regulations)
124. Efficiency The proposed building’s energy efficiency is maximised through a number of different measures, many relating to passive design. They include:-
High performance glazing with solar control glass; Deep window reveals to reduce solar gain; Building recess with glazing will allow more natural light to penetrate floorplates reducing artificial lighting requirements; Concrete structure and masonry envelope provides thermal mass reducing cooling and heating loads; Conditioned air provided by efficient ‘displacement’ system which features reduced velocities and associated pressure and energy losses; Energy efficient lighting systems with daylight dimming; High efficiency chiller; High efficiency boiler and; Biodiverse roof acts as further insulative measure.
125. Although the C02 targets provided by the Mayor and Islington Council both in its Core Strategy and recent Sustainable Design and Construction guidelines are acknowledged, it is estimated that by using the above features and by utilising on-site renewable energy, the total predicted carbon reduction figures for the proposed building, set against baseline figures provided by both the 2006 and 2010 Building Regulations are broadly acceptable to officers.
126. After energy efficiency measures and renewable provision are taken into account a C02 reduction of 8% set against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations baseline is estimated (the equivalent of 27 tonnes a year). When set against the 2006 Part L baseline the C02 reduction goes up to 25% (the 2006 Building Regulations allow greater carbon emissions from buildings with the result that the proposed measures save the equivalent of 108 tonnes of C02 per year).
127. Supplying Energy Efficiently A three option approach has been developed for the efficient provision of energy to the proposed building. The preferred approach is to connect to the existing Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP) district heating and cooling network, Citigen. This is located 450 metres from the site and, although capacity exists, currently a connection cannot be enabled due to the distance to a suitable connection point and the fact that it is beyond the adjacent underground and railway cutting. If, at detailed design stage the Citigen network has progressed further north, this will be the preferred approach and one which is endorsed by the London Plan energy hierarchy. Furthermore a condition will be attached (condition 20) which requires the submission of a feasibility study which explores the potential for a connection to Citigen and provision of the connection if deemed feasible.
128. Were the Citigen connection not to prove feasible Option 2 would entail provision of renewable energy to the building through a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) Open Loop. Such a system could provide 68% of the heating demands and 75% of the cooling demands delivering a 1.8% saving in site C02. Although this option delivers less C02 saving than the closed loop system it is the preferred approach because less boreholes will need to be dug through the basement slab. Combined with provision of photovoltaics (PV) at roof level, the system would allow a total C02 saving of 5.5%.
129. Should the above option prove unfeasible because of ground conditions a further option would be to provide a Ground Source Heat Pump Closed Loop. It is estimated that this would provide 70% of the buildings heating demands and 35% of the cooling delivering a 2% saving on site C02 emission. With PV provision at roof level, C02 savings are estimated to be 5.7% with use of this system.
130. As indicated above it is proposed that a PV array be installed at roof level. With no overshading to the south of the site and taking into account the bio-diverse element at roof level approximately 325 sq metres of panels can be installed. In addition to the emission rate savings and a reduced electricity bill, the potential to generate income is also possible through the current Government scheme of incentivising small scale low carbon electricity generation.
131. A condition (condition 21) is attached requiring submission to and approval from the Council of the suggested package of low carbon energy facilities including location, specification and operation should the connection to Citigen not be feasible.
132. The applicant considered a range of other low carbon energy measures including installing an on-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or CCHP system however modelling exercises concluded that significant C02 savings and financial benefits would not occur because of the proposed building’s relatively low heating demand, resulting low run times and the high maintenance costs for small units. The potential for an on- site biomass unit was assessed and largely ruled out because of the site’s location in an Air Quality Management Area.
133. Officers have raised some concern in regard to the proposed fully mechanical ventilation system proposed for the building as normally a passive or mixed mode system will be sought to reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions. The applicant has however provided sufficient justification for the solely mechanical provision which replicates features of mixed mode provision. The system is regarded as appropriate because the site is bounded by a traffic artery and busy railway line. Noise and air quality are not of a standard that would allow a passive or mixed mode system to operate efficiently. Notwithstanding this the building will have openable windows to provide future tenants with flexibility on ventilation strategy. Another significant factor in determining the most appropriate system are the relatively deep floorplates of the proposed building. Evidence provided by the applicant clearly indicates that a large part of each floor would not be sufficiently served by natural ventilation.
134. Officers have also indicated some concern that unlike the proposed ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating targeted for the office element of the proposal, no similar undertaking has been provided for the ground floor commercial units. Although it is acknowledged that BREEAM make provision for shell and core schemes, without a tenant or an exact end use, the applicant has insisted that an assessment at this stage for an area would not be appropriate. Officers are of the view that there should be consistency in respect to BREEAM requirements and therefore propose a suitably worded condition (condition 19) which will require pre-assessment indicating the BREEAM that would be anticipated for this element with the acknowledgement that a level less than that proposed for the office floor may be acceptable.
135. It can be noted that the applicant has provided an undertaking that they will enter into a ‘green’ lease with as many tenants as possible at Clerkenwell Road. The lease will provide obligations for tenants to cooperate with the applicant’s initiatives to minimise impacts in areas such as energy, water and waste.
Sustainability
136. The proposal has been assessed against relevant sustainability criteria within the London Plan and the Council’s Core Strategy, specifically Policy CS10 (Sustainable Design). An accompanying Sustainability Assessment has been provided by the applicant to indicate how the proposed building will allow for the highest possible level of sustainable design and achieves a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) office rating of ‘Excellent’ under the 2006 regulations (A post-construction review will be required by the BRE to demonstrate achievement of this target). A summary of those design features which address the need to reduce C02, use less water and meet other sustainability targets such as waste is provided below
137. The proposed development is brownfield, being on land that has already been developed and is close to amenities and public transport links to encourage sustainable transport.
138. The proposed office element of the scheme will have flexible floorplates suitable for different commercial uses over its lifetime in order to accommodate changes in demand for commercial space.
139. Consideration has been given to providing a building which has the capacity to adapt to the projected effects of climate change through the inclusion of water efficiency measures (specification includes taps, urinals, showers and WC’s that consume less water in use than standard equivalents and are in line with BREEAM 2006 standards for offices) and high performance solar glass to reduce the risk of overheating. A biodiverse roof in three parts is also provided to manage high temperatures, insulate and reduce surface run-off notwithstanding the fact that the site stands in an area of minimal flood risk (Zone 1).
140. In terms of building materials the development will maximise the use of construction material with higher recycled content – a 15% target by value of recycled content will be achieved. Use of recycled and secondary aggregates will be targeted. Sourcing of materials from sustainable sources and local suppliers, where feasible will occur with best practice as set down in ‘The Green Guide’ followed. The construction site will be managed in an environmentally sensitive manner with and the site will be registered under the Considerate Constructors Scheme. This obliges the constructor to demonstrate how waste is reduced, reused and recycled and to provide and implement a Site Waste Management Plan.
141. The development will provide internal facilities to enable and encourage future occupants to recycle as fully as possible. The recommended measures outlined in the BREEAM for offices will be adhered to in respect of volume of waste and recycling storage provision.
142. The development proposes a number of measures to promote sustainable modes of transport. Foremostly it is a car free development with future occupants obliged to make use of the excellent public transport accessibility (the site has a PTAL level of 6a/6b which represents the best level in terms of accessibility. The nearby Farringdon Station features both London Underground and network rail lines and Clerkenwell Road and Farringdon road are main arterial routes and provide numerous bus routes and stops. The accompanying Transport Plan concludes that the impact of proposal on the local transport network is likely to be imperceptible. The development provides 44 cycle parking spaces at basement mezzanine level in accordance with TfL standards, Islington Council and BREEAM guidance. Showers, lockers and drying cupboards are also incorporated within the basement plan to encourage cycle use and there will be safe and convenient access to these facilities from Broad Yard. The site is also well located in terms of recognised cycle routes.
143. The Sustainability Statement concludes that the principles of inclusive design have been integrated into the building’s layout to ensure a safe, legible, high quality environment that can be used by all without undue effort, special treatment or separation. A separate Design and Access Statement provides more detail in respect to accessibility policies and relevant legislation.
144. As outlined earlier in this report an Energy Strategy has also been prepared to support the application. The strategy is set out to apply the Mayor’s energy hierarchy (lean, clean and green) to the development and to consider appropriate heating and cooling systems according to the order of preference in the 2011 London Plan and Islington’s Core Strategy. The Energy Strategy concludes that presently the development would be unable to connect into the neighbouring Citigen decentralised energy network because of logistical issues. It does however indicate that further investigation will be undertaken in relation to the possibility of this connection being made in the future. Such work will be conditioned were approval be given for planning permission.
145. There is currently a target, using other heating and cooling energy source options to reduce carbon emissions on site by using open loop open source ground source heat pumps and a PV array at roof level. The energy and carbon savings from the open loop ground source heat pumps cannot be confirmed until a test borehole has been drilled to determine the water extraction rate. Should the test determine that the extraction rate is not suitable a closed loop ground source heat pump system will be pursued in combination with a PV array.
146. In respect of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) little information is provided. Both Islington Council and the Mayor require that development utilise SUDS and aim to achieve green field run off rates. A drainage hierarchy is provided within the London Plan and the development’s drainage provision should aim to address this matter mindful of that hierarchy. A relevant Condition (condition 26) is proposed requiring further details of a SUDS solution which will achieve the desired 50% attenuation target to be submitted and approved.
147. In terms of rainwater and greywater harvesting the applicant has provided satisfactory evidence-based justification which indicates the former is likely to be inefficient. Details of a grey water recycling system, essentially harvesting of wash basin and shower water for w.c flushing shall be sought through an appropriate condition (condition 27).
Highways and Transportation
148. The Appeal Scheme’s impact on highways and transportation was not considered to be one of the main issues of the 2010 Appeal Scheme. The current application proposes the same response to highways and transportation matters as the 2010 Appeal scheme, except for Crossrail contributions. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the current application including consideration of changes arising due to the Islington Core Strategy and adoption of Crossrail policy.
149. The Site is located at the northern end of Turnmill Street at the junction with Clerkenwell Road. Turnmill Street itself is a one way street with traffic entering at the northern end from Clerkenwell Road and existing at Cowcross Street to the south. Turnmill Street has double yellow lines along its entirety, with no permitted on-street parking. The existing building benefits from 12 off-street parking spaces and also servicing area, which is accessed from two points along the Turnmill Street frontage of the building.
150. The Site has an ‘Excellent’ Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL = 6a/b) and is located within the ‘Zone C’ Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and also within the Congestion Charging Zone. Farringdon railway/underground station is located approximately 200m from the site, and 4 bus services pass nearby the site at St. Johns Street and Roseberry Avenue. The London Borough of Islington is the Highway Authority for Clerkenwell Road and Turnmill Street – Farringdon Road forms part of the Transport for London (TfL) Road Network and is location within 100m of the Site. The Site is noted within ‘Parking Policy Area A’ and consequently is within an area of strict traffic restraint.
151. A Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the scheme and concludes that the scheme constitutes a highly sustainable development, which with its limited trip generation will have little relative impact on the highly accessible local public transport network and the capacity of the pedestrian facilities. The various issues contained within the transport assessment are discussed within the following paragraphs
152. Servicing Servicing would occur from Turnmill Street, the scheme proposes the creation of a new on-street servicing bay line-marked with a single yellow line adjacent to and north of the junction between Turnmill Street and Broad Yard. To facilitate the creation of the on-street servicing bay the existing crossovers, made redundant by the proposed development, would be removed and existing metered parking bays would be moved northward along Turnmill Street, with total numbers remaining unchanged. Deliveries would be unloaded at Turnmill Street and trolleyed / carried to the goods entrance and service lift accessed from Broad Yard.
153. The above noted servicing arrangements are identical to the servicing arrangements agreed for the 2007 Approval. There has been no change in circumstance that would make the arrangement unacceptable. In the interest of securing appropriate operation of site servicing, and as suggested by TfL, a condition has been attached (condition 16) which requires the submission of a Servicing Delivery Plan. The applicant has agreed to a clause within the S106 agreement to contribute towards the cost of the provision of the on-street servicing bay.
154. The scheme proposes no on or off-street car parking bays for any of the resulting business or commercial units, and therefore constitutes a car-free development. Car- free developments can be defined as development with no car-parking facilities for staff or visitors other than as needed to meet the needs of disabled people. Logically, car- free developments should be supplied in areas that can support it. As already indicated site has an ‘excellent’ PTAL, is situated close to a tube station and bus stops and within minutes walking distance of shops and services. This is a prime site for a car free development and therefore the proposed lack of parking is considered to promote the council’s and Government’s sustainable transport aims and objectives and is therefore welcomed. In accordance with Core Strategy policy CS10 an informative is attached which confirms that future occupants will not have access to parking permits.
155. Travel Plan A framework draft travel plan has been submitted with relation to the resulting use of the premises. The applicant has agreed to a clause (clause 9) within the S106 agreement which requires the submission of a worked up draft travel plan prior to implementation, a final travel plan within 6 months of occupation and a travel plan update three years following first occupation.
156. Cycle Parking As set out in the commentary on Sustainability the scheme shows the provision of two bicycle storage areas capable of holding a total of 44 cycles for use by future occupants of the building. This number is regarded as meeting relevant Islington Council and TfL standards. Staff shower, locker and changing facilities are provided at the basement mezzanine level, conveniently located to the larger of the two cycle storage areas. The cycle and shower/locker/changing facilities are welcome and a condition is attached (condition 15) to secure the provision.
157. Waste A secure storage area for waste (both refuse and recycling) is provided within the building at ground floor level and accessed via the goods entrance from Broad Yard. The provision is considered to accord with the Council’s ‘Refuse and Recycling Guide’ with regard to its location, size and access; and the council’s Street Environment Service has raised no objection to the proposal. The location of the storage area is in a similar location as the area previously approved with the 2007 Approval, the access arrangements from Broad Yard are unchanged. A condition is attached (condition 17), which requires the submission of a waste management strategy and details of the secure refuse/recycling enclosure.
158. Public Realm and Repair of Footways and Highways In order to ensure the standard of the footpaths and roads adjoining the site, particularly those used for construction access, are maintained / reinstated following the completion of construction work and that redundant crossovers are removed the applicant has agreed to a clause within the S106 agreement to secure payment for necessary works. A clause has also been agreed which secures the contribution of £88,495 towards the improvement of public realm within the vicinity of the Site. This is considered necessary to address the additional pressure the development is likely to place on the public realm.
159. London Underground The Site is located in close proximity to the Farringdon railway cutting, which runs along the former Fleet River valley and contains London Underground infrastructure. The application was referred to London Underground for consideration. As briefly reported earlier in this report London Underground confirmed that although there was no in-principle objection to the development, it would need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of their engineers that the development would not have a detrimental short or long term impact on London Underground infrastructure. A condition is therefore attached (condition 25) which requires the submission of details of the construction of the building, particularly relating to its foundations.
160. Crossrail Ltd (i.e. infrastructure) were consulted during the consideration of the original planning application and confirmed that the Site is technically located outside the limits of land subject to consultation by the Safeguarding Direction. Crossrail Ltd confirmed that the implications of the development were considered and that no comments would be made on the application submitted. No conditions or informatives were suggested. These comments are considered equally relevant to the current application.
Crossrail Funding, S106 and Scheme Viability
161. At the time of the consideration of the 2010 Appeal Scheme the Mayor’s SPG: ‘Use of Planning Obligations in Funding Crossrail’ had yet to be adopted and consequently it was considered unreasonable to require a Crossrail contribution. Subsequently the Mayor’s Crossrail Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was adopted in July 2010 and is therefore now a material planning consideration for large schemes within the defined central area catchment zone. The SPG requires that development providing new office, hotel or retail floorspace over 500 sq.m should contribute to Crossrail (a payment of £137 per square metre on office space uplift and £388 per square metre on retail space uplift is notionally obligated). If the standard SPG formula were to be applied for the application proposals it is calculated the development uplift would warrant a notional contribution of £536, 358 towards Crossrail.
162. Paragraph 4.25 of the Mayor’s SPG states that ‘Circular 5/05 is clear that where a standard charge and formula approach is taken, it should not be applied in a blanket form regardless of actual impacts, but there needs to be a consistent approach to their application. The Mayor will consider carefully any case in which it can be demonstrated that making a contribution under this guidance would have an effect on the economic viability of a development, or would otherwise be unreasonable or disproportionate. In cases where applicants consider the viability of a development could be undermined by the application of the standard charge, financial appraisals should be submitted to justify this position…’
163. The Council has also assessed the scheme against its own Planning Obligations (Section106) SPD and provisions within 2010’s Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations which indicate that any contributions sought through Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act must be :-
A) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; B) Directly related to the development; and C) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
164. The applicant has carried out a full viability assessment to prove the notional S106 and full Crossrail aggregated contribution could not be afforded when realistic financial assumptions modelled. This assessment has been provided to the Council and indicates, after sensitivity and simulation exercises were carried out, that an aggregated contributions ‘pot’ (for Crossrail and S106) of £480,000 is the maximum the scheme can afford.
165. At the applicant’s cost, the Council instructed DVS (District Valuation Services), a specialist arm of the Valuation Office who have provided independent development finance advice on this scheme and others in the Borough previously, to consider the veracity of the supporting Financial Assessment. As part of the assessment the applicant also instructed CBRE to provide a market review report for the proposed office, retail and restaurant uses. DVS consider estimated rental values and future forecasts to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘robust’ whilst marketing costs and tenant incentives are viewed as ‘realistic’. DVS conclude overall that the report is consistent, and on balance, provides adequate supporting material to substantiate findings.
166. After detailed consideration of the aggregated figure of £480,000 officers have concluded that a contribution of £335,406 should be set against the Council’s own essential mitigating Section 106 requirements largely for transport, public open space and housing, and the remaining £144,594 has been allocated towards Crossrail funding. As a comparison the 2007 approval was accompanied by a S106 agreement which obligated payment of contributions totalling approximately £365,000. This figure was agreed without any accompanying Crossrail tariff, formulated before the full impact of the recession was to become apparent and prior to the adoption of the 2009 Planning Obligations SPD.
Other Matters
167. The Appeal Scheme’s impact on trees, open space, archaeology and water infrastructure were not considered to be main issues of the 2010 Appeal. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the current application.
168. Trees and Open Space A semi-mature street tree exists within the footpath to Clerkenwell Road directly in front of the application site and is considered to be of good visual amenity value. Conditions are attached (condition 22) which ensure that the tree is protected during the construction.
169. Future employees and visitors to the new development are likely to place additional pressure on the existing small nearby areas of public open space, which already experience significant use by surrounding residential and commercial developments. To ensure that the additional pressure on open space arising from the development is mitigated against the applicant has agreed to a clause within the S106 agreement which secures a contribution of £88,495 towards the improvement on open spaces within the vicinity of the Site.
170. Archaeology English Heritage (Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service – GLAAS) considered the application and confirmed that the site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area – the designation is due to the medieval development of the Clerkenwell Area. It was considered that the Site is of particular importance as it is located in the outer precinct of the Priory of St John of Jerusalem, established in the 12th Century. Remains associated with the medieval use of the site, as well as post dissolution and later building are considered to be significant.
171. The response by GLAAS noted that the Site is presently basemented, with the estimated base of slab along Turnmill Street frontage at c. 8.60m OD. The archaeological horizon is thought to be around 9.0m OD, which suggests deep cut features, such as quarry pits and wells, as well as geo-archaeological deposits associated with the Fleet river may be present underneath the present basement. Development proposals such as ground source heat pumps and recasting the slab, if necessary, has the potential to impact upon archaeological features. GLAAS considered that further analysis was not necessary prior to the council determining the application. However, it was recommended that the archaeological position be reserved by attaching a condition (condition 24) for the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, together with an informative.
172. Water Infrastructure The Site is located in Zone 1, is less than 10,000sqm (1 hectare) in size and therefore a flood-risk assessment in line with PPS25 is not necessary. The; the existing risk from groundwater sources, overland flow and sewers are considered negligible.
173. Thames Water has considered the proposal and raised no objection over the potential impact the development may have on existing water infrastructure in terms of the sewerage network, surface water drainage networks or impact on adequacy of water pressure. Thames Water suggested the inclusion of informatives.
174. Conditions The 2010 Appeal necessitated draft conditions being provided to the Planning Inspector by the Council in the event he were to find favour with the scheme. The Inspector stated at paragraph 22 of his report:
‘… I consider these conditions, either as presented or as discussed at the Inquiry, to satisfy the tests of Circular 11/95… they would be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.’
175. Although a number of bespoke conditions are suggested the proposed conditions are largely updated/amended versions of those previously agreed as mutually acceptable on the 2010 Appeal Scheme.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
176. The merits of the demolition of the existing building are considered within the accompanying conservation area report (LBI ref. P110393) which also recommended for approval.
177. The new building is considered to be of exceptional design with functional and contextual qualities superior to the present building. It is considered to respect the height, scale, form and character of its surrounding townscape creating a positive and appropriate relationship with nearby buildings and spaces. Importantly officers are of the view that the proposal would maintain character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and believe that the setting of the former Sessions House, a Grade II* listed building will not be harmed.
178. The new building would not infringe on protected views of St. Paul’s.
179. The development is considered to achieve a good standard of sustainability and, subject to condition, would include a scheme of on-site renewable energy provision. The building includes suitable bio-diverse habitats in the form of a green roof and will protect the existing semi-mature street tree on Clerkenwell Road through use of a condition.
180. The proposal, subject to minor amendments, to be determined through submission of further detail would provide for inclusive and convenient access for all. The proposed layout provides appropriate servicing arrangements, cycle provision and refuse/recycling enclosures. The car free scheme is considered not to adversely impact on the surrounding road network or existing levels of on-street parking.
181. Consideration has been given to the matter of amenity and in particular to those objections from surrounding residents and commercial occupiers who have referred to loss of amenity (i.e. daylight, sunlight, outlook, etc.). The objections were not considered to be of such substance as to outweigh the reasons for granting planning permission.
182. It is the view of officers that an appropriate level of Section 106 obligations and Crossrail funding has been secured and that the applicant’s financial viability assessment which determined these figures is robust and reasonable.
183. The development, subject to appropriate condition, will have no adverse impact on any archaeological remains within the site boundary.
Conclusion
184. It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the reasons and details as set out in Appendix 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS.
APPENDIX 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS
APPLICATION NUMBER P110392 Proposal Demolition of the existing building and erection of 6 storey building, plus basement with mezzanine level and roof top plant enclosure to provide for 6,834 sqn (GEA) of business (Class B1) floorspace and 2,869 sqm (GEA) flexible shop / restaurant/café /drinking establishment (Class A1/A3/A4) floorspace together with associated works
Type of application Full Planning application Application Received 22 February 2011 Application Completed 11 March 2011 Name of applicant Derwent Valley Property Name of agent Gerald Eve Case Officer Peter Munnelly Area Team Major Applications Heritage information Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area; Building is not listed; and Archaeological Proirity Area LIBRARY (holding copy FINSBURY LIBRARY, 245 St.John Street EC1 of application) WARD South Area - Clerkenwell Ward PS2 code description All Other Developments Major 91st day
RECOMMENDATION A
That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant and any mortgagees entering into a Deed of Planning Obligation by means of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Head of Law and Public Services and the Service Director Public Protection/ Head of Service – Development Management or in their absence the Area Team Leader:
1. A contribution of a total of £88,495 public open space within the vicinity of the site;
2. A contribution of £48,000 in lieu of housing;
3. A contribution of £181,458 for transportation improvements;
4. A contribution of £144,594 towards the Crossrail scheme which is to be paid to the Council and transferred to the Greater London Authority;
5. A contribution for the repair and re-instatement of the footways and highways adjoining the development and a payment to cover the costs of any other works to the necessary alterations to the public highway e.g. new access arrangements. To be costed by condition surveys. S278 agreement where necessary;
6. Compliance with the Code of Employment and Training. Facilitation of work placements during the construction phase of the development, lasting a minimum of 13 weeks, or equivalent fee to be paid to LBI. Developer / contractor to pay wages (must meet national minimum wage). London Borough of Islington Construction Works Team to recruit for and monitor placement;
7. Compliance with the Council’s Code of Local Procurement;
8. Compliance with the Council’s Code of Construction Practice. Submission of a detailed and site specific response document to the Council’s Code of Construction Practice at least one month before works commence on site. The report should be in a format agreed with the council’s Public Protection (Pollution Team) and with sufficient information and technical detail. The response document shall apply the principles and requirements of the COCP on a site specific basis taking into account the relevant environmental issues of the site. It shall also include details of the community liaison strategy. The measures in the approved document shall be implemented as agreed with the Local Planning Authority;
9. A draft Travel Plan to be submitted for the Council’s approval prior to the Implementation of the planning permission. Full Travel Plan to be submitted for the Council’s approval within six months of First Occupation of the site, including a full travel survey (further to draft Green Travel Plan submitted prior to Implementation). A Travel Plan update to be submitted to the Council (including a travel survey) three years after occupation of the development for the Council’s approval;
10. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP) detailing haulage routes, hours of operation, frequency of vehicles, how operators will be required to comply with the TMP, where and how vehicle holding areas would be managed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The TMP shall include details of existing traffic calming measures along the designated haulage route. The costs of any necessary modification, removal or replacement traffic calming (e.g. to reduce noise and vibration) to be met by the applicant;
11. Amendment to the Traffic Management Order(s) in securing the provision of the new on- street servicing bay to Turnmill Street including all associated construction, signage, demarcation, monitoring, and administration costs to be provided by LBI Public Realm;
12. Council's legal fees in preparing the S106; and
13. All payments to the Council to be index linked from the date of the Committee.
That, should the Section 106 agreement not be completed within 13 weeks from the date when the application was made valid, Service Director Public Protection/ Head of Service – Development Management or in their absence the Area Team Leader may refuse the application on the grounds that the proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement fails to secure appropriate planning obligations. ALTERNATIVELY should this application be refused (including refusals on the direction of GOL or The Mayor) and appealed to the Secretary of State, Service Director Public Protection/ Head of Service – Development Management or in their absence the Area Team Leader be authorised to enter into an agreement pursuant to S.106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure to the heads of terms as set out in this report to Committee.
RECOMMENDATION B
That the grant of planning permission be subject to conditions to secure the following:
List of Conditions:
1 Development to commence within 3 years from date of permission CONDITION: The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Chapter 5).
2 Drawings and documents CONDITION: The development hereby approved is comprised of the following drawings and documents:
Drgs: 13400-A-P-: 001, 010, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108; 1400-A-S- : 121, 124; 13400-A-E-: 130, 131, 132, 133 Planning Statement Design and Access Statement (Pts 1, 2 & Appendices); Energy Strategy; Sustainability Statement; Structural Engineers Report; Transport Assessment, Travel Plan; Noise and Vibration Assessment; Sunlight and Daylight Report; Archaeological Assessment; Viewing Corridor Study, Townscape, Conservation and Visual Assessment Financial Assessment
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the drawings and documents so approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To comply with Section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Act 1990 as amended, the Reason for Grant and to ensure that the development is built in accordance with the drawings and documents so approved.
3 Materials + green procurement CONDITION: Details and samples of all facing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure work is commenced on site. The samples and details shall include: a) brickwork - to be Kolumba bricks or similar (including brick panels and mortar courses); b) window treatment (including sections and reveals); c) perforated parapet design; d) roofing materials and glazing system/cladding of the top floor; e) louvered treatment at ground floor level (shown in context and including sections); f) doors to goods entrance and fire escapes (shown in context and including sections); g) any other materials to be used; and h) green procurement plan
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of securing sustainable development and to ensure that the resulting appearance and construction of the development is of a high standard in accordance with policy 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: Env1; Env2; D1; D4; D22 and D24 of the Islington UDP 2002.
4 Eastern elevation CONDITION: Details of the design and cladding of the eastern elevation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure an acceptable design and appearance of the eastern elevation in accordance with policy 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: Env1; Env2; D1; D4; D22 and D24 of the Islington UDP 2002.
5 Ground floor elevation (business and commercial) CONDITION: Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, full details of the ground floor elevations including: a) main business/office (B1) entrance; b) glazed shopfronts to the flexible commercial units A1/A3/A4
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced on that relevant aspect of the scheme. The details shall include: doors, sections, elevational and threshold treatments, all to be shown in context and to a scale of 1:50.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the Authority may be satisfied with the access arrangements and the street level external appearance / interface of the buildings in accordance with policies 7.2 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D3; D22; D24; Env12; S29; T45; T49 and T55 of the Islington UDP 2002.
6 Roof top enclosure CONDITION: Details of the scheme of: a) roof-top plant; b) lift over-run; and c) ancillary enclosures/structure;
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. The details shall include the location, height above roof level, specifications and cladding.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and no change therefrom shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In the interest of good design and also to ensure that the Authority may be satisfied that any roof-top plant, ancillary enclosure/structure or the lift over-run do not have a harmful impact on the surrounding streetscene or the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area in accordance with policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D1, D4 and D24 of the Islington UDP 2002.
7 CCTV, security and general lighting CONDTION Details of any scheme of: a) CCTV; b) general lighting; and/or c) security lighting
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and installed prior to the first occupation of the development. The details shall include the location and full specification of: all lamps; light levels/spill; cameras (detailing view paths); lamps and support structures.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the any resulting general or security lighting and CCTV cameras are appropriately located, designed do not adversely impact neighbouring residential amenity and are appropriate to the overall design of the building in accordance with policies 7.3 and 7.4 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D1; D3; D4 and Env12 of the Islington UDP 2002.
8 No amalgamation of flexible units CONDITION: The basement/ground floor flexible units (A1/A3/A4) shall be laid out as shown on drawings 12810 AP 100c and 102b hereby approved and shall not be amalgamated to create a single commercial unit.
REASON: The consideration of the acceptability of the commercial uses was based on the proposed size of units as shown on the approved plans; the amalgamation of the units is likely to have operational, transportation, security and amenity implications, which would need to be tested under a separate planning application. In order to comply with policies: D3; Env12; S29; T45; T49; T21; T45 and T55 of the Islington UDP 2002.
9 No undue obscuring of shopfronts CONDITION: The window glass of all ground floor commercial units shall not be painted, tinted or otherwise obscured and no furniture or fixings which may obscure visibility above a height of 1.4m above finished floor level be placed within 2.0m of the inside of the window glass.
REASON: In the interest of pedestrian security and to secure an appropriate street frontage and appearance in accordance with policies 7.3 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D1; D3; D4 and Env12 of the Islington UDP 2002.
10 Removal of PD rights A3/A4 to A2 CONDITION: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Class) Order 1987 (As Amended) permitted rights to change from flexible A3 / A4 (restaurant / drinking establishment) to A2 (financial and professional services) are herby removed. No such change shall occur without express planning permission.
REASON: To ensure that the flexible commercial accommodation does not change to A2 (financial and professional services) use via permitted rights allowed under the Town and Country Planning (Use Class) Order 1987 (As Amended). It is considered that the creation of ground floor A2 uses would fail to provide a lively street frontage and would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the resulting building, the streetscenes and the conservation area. The removal of permitted rights would ensure compliance with policies CS1 and E3 of the Islington UDP 2002.
11 Inclusive design CONDITION: The development shall be designed in accordance with the principles of Inclusive Design. To achieve this the development shall provide:
a) lift access between the ground and basement commercial units; b) main ground floor and retail/restaurant unit street entrances; c) wheelchair accessible shower as part of the cycle facility, together with lift access from ground floor level; d) provision of 300mm manoeuvring space beyond leading edge of door where necessary; and e) provision of at least one disabled toilet where ever mainstream toilets are provided.
The development shall be constructed strictly in accordance with the details so approved.
REASON: In order to facilitate and promote inclusive and sustainable communities, in accordance with policy 7.2 of the London Plan 2011.
12 Fixed plant CONDITION: The design and installation of new items of fixed plant shall be such that when operating the cumulative noise level LAeq Tr arising from the proposed plant, measured or predicted at 1m from the facade of the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall be a rating level of 5dB(A) below the background noise level LAF90 Tbg. The measurement and/or prediction of the noise should be carried out in accordance with the methodology contained within BS 4142: 1997.
REASON: To ensure that the operation of fixed plant does not impact on residential amenity in accordance with policy 5.3 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D3; Env17 and H3 of the Islington UDP 2002.
13 Flue extraction systems CONDITION: Should the ground/basement level flexible (A1/A3/A4) commercial units be taken up for A3/A4 use details of proposed flues / extraction systems for the units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on the unit to which they relate. The filter systems of the approved flue / extraction units shall be regularly maintained and cleaned; and any filters and parts requiring cleaning or replacement shall be easily accessible.
The flue / extraction systems shall be installed / carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of protecting future residential amenity and the appearance of the resulting buildings in accordance with policies 5.3 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies Env17, D1 and D4 of the Islington UDP 2002.
14 Substation CONDITION: Details of the ground floor substation including its location, acoustic specifications, cladding/facing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of protecting amenity and to ensure that the Authority may be satisfied that any substation(s) does not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the building approved the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area or the existing streetscene in accordance with policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D1; D3; D4 and D24 of the Islington UDP 2002.
15 Cycle storage and facilities CONDITION: The bicycle facilities located at basement and ground floor levels hereby approved shall be secure and provide for no less than 55 and 6 bicycle spaces respectively. The enclosures, together with the ancillary showering, changing and locker facilities shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure adequate cycle parking is available and easily accessible on site and to promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy 6.9 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: T34 and T52 of the Islington UDP 2002.
16 Delivery and Servicing Plan CONDITION: A delivery and servicing plan (DSP) detailing servicing arrangements including the exact location, times and frequency shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with TfL) prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.
The development shall be operated strictly in accordance with the details so approved, shall be maintained as such thereafter and no change therefrom shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the resulting servicing arrangements are satisfactory in terms of their impact on the free-flow of traffic and highways safety implications in accordance with policy 6.3 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D3; T15; T21 and T55 of the Islington UDP 2002.
17 Waste management CONDITION: Details of the dedicated refuse / recycling enclosure(s) together with the waste management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing onsite; and the approved enclosure(s) shall be provided/erected prior to the first occupation of the buildings hereby approved.
The development shall be carried out and operated strictly in accordance with the details and waste management strategy approved and maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To secure the necessary physical waste enclosures to support the development and to ensure that responsible waste management practices are adhered to in accordance with policy 5.17 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D3 and Env38 of the Islington UDP 2002.
18 Green roof CONDITION: Details of the green/brown roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. The green/brown roof shall be: a) biodiversity based with extensive substrate base (depth 50-150mm); b) laid out in accordance with plan 12810 AP 109b hereby approved; and c) planted/seeded with an agreed mix of species within the first planting season following the practical completion of the building works.
The green/brown roof shall not be used as an amenity or sitting out space of any kind whatsoever and shall only be used in the case of essential maintenance or repair, or escape in case of emergency.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure the development provides the maximum possible provision towards creation of habitats and valuable areas for biodiversity in accordance with policies 5.11 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: Env1; Env2 and Env24 of the Islington UDP 2002.
19 BREEAM Office ‘Excellent’ CONDITION: Evidence confirming that the Class B1 element development achieves a BREEAM (2006) Office rating of no less than 'Excellent' shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Evidence confirming that the ground floor Class A1/A3/A4 element achieves a BREEAM (2006) rating of no less than ‘Very Good’ for any final use or satisfactory equivalent shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The evidence shall be provided in the following formats and at the following times:
a) a design stage assessment, supported by relevant BRE interim certificate(s), shall be submitted at pre-construction stage prior to commencement of superstructure works on site; and b) a post-construction assessment, supported by relevant BRE accreditation certificate(s), shall be submitted following the practical completion of the development and prior to the first occupation.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of addressing climate change and to secure sustainable development in accordance with policies 5.2 and 5.3 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: Env1 and Env2 of the Islington UDP 2002.
20 Connection to Citigen feasibility – Options 1 and 2 CONDITION: No development shall be commenced (excluding demolition) unless and until: a) a feasibility study analysing the potential for the connection to Citigen district heating network has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Should the study demonstrate that a connection is: b) technically and practically feasible then full details of the connection and infrastructure including the level of C02 reduction which would be achieved by such a connection shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing onsite; and the connection shall be provided and operation prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with those details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter. c) not technically and practically feasible then the scheme of on-site renewable energy provision, as detailed under condition 22, shall be implemented.
REASON: To ensure investigation into the potential connection to Citigen, and to secure the on-site provision of renewable energy technology should this not be feasible in accordance with policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: Env1, Env2 and Env38 of the Islington UDP 2002.
21 Renewable energy CONDITION: The energy measures (including energy efficient fabric and solar PV) which shall together provide for no less than a 25% on-site total C02 reduction in comparison with total emissions from a building which complies with Building Regulations 2006 as detailed within the Energy Statement Summary shall be installed and operational prior to the first occupation of the development.
Should, following further assessment, the approved energy measures be found to be no-longer suitable:
a) A revised Energy Strategy, which shall provide for no less than a 25% on-site total C02 reduction in comparison with total emissions from a building which complies with Building Regulations 2006, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. The final agreed scheme shall be installed and operation prior to the first occupation of the development.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of sustainable development and to ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that the C02 emission reduction targets are met in accordance with policies: 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7 of the London Plan 2011 and policy CS10A, B and G of the Islington Core Strategy 2011.
. 22 Street tree protection CONDITION: No development shall be commenced unless and until details of the retention and adequate protection of all trees and tree root systems bordering and adjacent to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and enacted (retention/protection shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 'Trees in Relation to Construction'). The details shall include a site plan identifying all trees to be retained including the location of Root Protection Area (RPA) and Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) and the erection of the hoarding. Tree protecting fencing shall consist of a rigid 2.4 metre OSB, exterior grade ply high sterling board hoarding or weld mesh. Heras fencing in concrete, rubber or similar foot plates is not acceptable as a form of tree root protection.
REASON: To protect the health and stability of trees to be retained on the site, and to ensure that a satisfactory standard of visual amenity is provided and maintained in accordance with policy 7.4 of the London Plan 2011 and policy Env6 of the Islington UDP 2002.
23 Excavation for underground services CONDITION: Any excavations for services within the canopy spread of any tree adjoining the site must be undertaken in accordance with the guidance set out in NJUG Volume 4, Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees 2007.
REASON: In the interest of protecting existing trees which adjoin the site and to maintain a satisfactory level of visual amenity in the area in accordance with policy 7.4 of the London Plan 2011 and policy Env6 of the Islington UDP 2002.
24 Archaeology CONDITION: No development shall be commenced unless and until the applicant, their agent or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with English Heritage).
REASON: Important archaeological remains may exist on this site. Accordingly the planning authority wishes to secure the provision of archaeological investigation and the subsequent recording of the remains prior to development, in accordance with the guidance and model condition set out in PPG16, policy: 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 and policies: D43; D44; D45; D46 and D47 of the Islington UDP 2002.
25 London Underground CONDITION: No development shall be commenced (excluding demolition) unless and until details of the proposed works/foundation arrangements and their relationship to existing London Underground infrastructure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with London Underground).
REASON: To ensure that the resulting develeopment does not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of London Underground or its infrastructure in accordance with policy 6.2 of the London Plan 2011 and policy T55 of the Islington UDP 2002.
26 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Details of surface drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. The details shall be based on an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles as set out in Appendix F of PPS25 and London Plan policy 4A.14. The drainage system shall be installed/operational prior to the first occupation of the development.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that sustainable management of water in accordance with PPG25, policy 5.13 of the London Plan 2011, policy Env39 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 and policies: CS10C and E and CS15G of the Islington Core Strategy 2011.
27 Greywater Harvesting Details of the proposed building’s grey water harvesting system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. The system shall be installed/operational prior to the first occupation of the development.
The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that sustainable management of water in accordance with PPG25, policy 5.15 of the London Plan 2011, policy Env39 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 and policies: CS10C and E and CS15G of the Islington Core Strategy 2011.
List of Informatives:
1 S106 SECTION 106 AGREEMENT You are advised that this permission has been granted subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Superstructure DEFINITION OF ‘SUPERSTRUCTURE’ AND ‘PRACTICAL COMPLETION’ A number of conditions attached to this permission have the time restrictions prior to ‘superstructure works commencing on site’ and/or ‘practical completion’. The Council considers the definition of ‘superstructure’ as meaning: the part of a building above its foundations, and the site-wide basement level slab. The council considers the definition of ‘practical completion’ to be: when the work reaches a state of readiness for use or occupation even though there may be outstanding works/matters to be carried out.
3 Archaeology ARCHAEOLOGY The development of the site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines.
4 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority LONDON FIRE AND EMERGENCY PLANNING AUTHORITY No evidence was noted as to the provision of a dry rising main within the premises. Please ensure the premises is provided with a dry fire main and that access for a pumping appliance is provided within 18m of each fire main inlet connection. The inlet should be clearly visible
5 Materials MATERIALS Materials procured for the development should be selected to be sustainably sourced and otherwise minimise their environmental impact, including through maximisation of recycled content, use of local suppliers and by reference to the BRE’s Green Guide Specification.
6 Thames Water THAMES WATER Thames Water requests that the Applicant should incorporate within their proposal protection to the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.
Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments. Furthermore, it is recommended, in line with best practice for the disposal of fats, oils and grease, the collection of waste by an oil contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio-diesel. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses.
With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of the developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required.
There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which may need to be diverted (at the developer’s cost), or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be treated. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair.
7 Roller Shutters ROLLER SHUTTERS The scheme hereby approved does not suggest the installation of external rollershutters to any entrances or ground floor glazed shopfronts. The applicant is advised that the council would consider the installation of external rollershutters to be a material alteration to the scheme and therefore constitute development. Should external rollershutters be proposed a new planning application must be submitted for the council’s formal consideration.
RECOMMENDATION C
That if members are minded to approve this proposal officers recommend that the following summary forms the reasons for grant to be published on the decision notice:
This proposal has been approved following consideration of all the relevant policies in the Development Plan (2011 London Plan, Islington Core Strategy 2011 and Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002), Government Planning Policy Guidance/Statements and other material considerations.
- This decision was made by the Members of the Planning Committee on the 1st September 2011. - The development is located within the CAZ and provides for a mix of office and retail and therefore accords with new London Plan (2011) policies 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3; policies: CS12, CS13 and CS7A of the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and remains consistent with the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 policies: S27, E1, E2, E3, E13, Imp5, Imp6, Imp14, Imp15, CS1 and CS2; - The updated energy strategy utilises enhanced fabric efficiency and energy efficient appliances and passive design features to minimise energy and heating demand. A revised renewable energy strategy would secure an appropriate reduction in CO2 emissions. A condition is recommended to require feasibility studies of connection to Citigen Decentralized Energy Network to accord with London Plan 2011 policies: 5.5 and 5.6 and Core Strategy 2011 policy CS10. Subject to this feasibility assessment being undertaken the overall Energy Strategy for the development would comply with policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.9 of the London Plan 2011 and policy: CS10A of the Islington Core Strategy 2011; - The proposal would meet BREEAM ‘Excellent’ (2008) for the commercial floorspace. The development would incorporate green roofs and grey water re-use, and conditions requiring a sustainable procurement plan and water efficiency target would further secure compliance with updated policies. The development would comply with policies: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.17 and 5.18 of the London Plan 2011 and policy CS10 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011; - The design is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area and enhance the setting of nearby Grade II* listed building. The layout, height, bulk, scale and design of the development is acceptable and the proposal is considered to accord with PPS5, London Plan 2011 policies: 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.8, policies CS7 and CS9 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and policies D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D20, D22, D24, D43, D44, D45, D46, D47, CS5, CS7, CS8, CS10, CS11, CS14, CS16 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002; - The scheme does not adversely impact on adjoining residential amenity. The proposal would therefore be compliant with policy: 7.6 of the London Plan 2011; policies CS7I and CS9 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011; policies: Env16, Env17 and D3 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002; - The development would be car free, provides storage for cyclists and was otherwise found acceptable in 2007. A financial contribution towards the funding of Crossrail has been secured to address new policy requirements. The proposal would comply with policies: 6.1, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.13 of the London Plan 2011, policies: CS10 of the Core Strategy 2011 and policies: T18, T32, T34, T47, T49, T55, D3, Imp5, Imp6, Imp13, Imp14, Imp15, CS16 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2011; and - Planning obligations and financial contributions including a contribution towards the funding of Crossrail have been secured, together with conditions as they are considered necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development in line with CIL Legislation, policies: 6.5 and 8.2 of the London Plan 2011, policy CS18 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and policy Imp13 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 and the Islington Planning Obligations SPD 2009.
APPENDIX 2 – SITE PLAN