planning report PDU/2647a/02 15 December 2010 Plot T6, King’s Cross Central

in the Borough of Camden planning application no. 2010/4468/P

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

The proposal Development of student housing (657 bed spaces) in a building of between 14 and 27 storeys, along with a retail unit at ground floor level. The applicant The applicants are King’s Cross General Partner Ltd and Urbanest (UK), and the architect is Glenn Howells Architects

Strategic issues This is a full planning application for new student housing, although outline permission for student housing already exists, as part of the wider King’s Cross Central masterplan.

There were outstanding transport, design and energy matters from the consultation stage, and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor have also reconsidered the development against tall buildings policies. There are now no outstanding strategic issues.

The Council’s decision

Camden Council has resolved to grant permission for the development, subject to a section 106 legal agreement and no intervention from the Mayor. Recommendation That Camden Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 7 September 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of … more than 30 metres high and is outside the .”

page 1 2 On 12 October 2010, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2647a/01, and subsequently advised Camden Council that the application did not comply with the , for the reasons set out in paragraph 64 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 65 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, additional information has been provided by the applicant, in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 24 November 2010, Camden Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 26 November 2010, it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Camden Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Camden Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 15 December 2010 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage, Camden Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 64 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 65 of that report could address these deficiencies:

Tall buildings/views

6 Since the previous consultation, the applicant presented additional information to officers, including additional views and models. Officers also visited the large-scale model of King’s Cross Central, displayed at the German Gymnasium behind King’s Cross Station. With the benefit of additional information supplied by the applicant regarding the development’s context and setting, officers are content that the scheme meets the requirements of the London Plan.

Urban design

7 At the consultation stage, the applicant was asked to clarify with the Council the access arrangements for the disabled parking in within the service road area, and how this location could provide a safe and secure environment in the future.

8 During the initial stage of the building’s occupation, prior to the completion of the other buildings in the terrace adjacent to the railway, the entrance to the service road and parking area would be gated with secondary surveillance provided by CCTV, and a direct entrance from this area into the building. This is acceptable as a medium-term solution, but good design should rely on passive surveillance within the development, rather than on secondary measures such as remote surveillance. As the development of other sites progresses, the gate would be removed from the service road, and additional activity and estate management would provide additional surveillance. However, GLA officers recommend that the future design of T5 have a degree of passive surveillance over this area, as the access and parking has the potential to be shared. Although the proposed solution is not the optimum one, it is acceptable within the current context, and has potential for improvement.

page 2 Transport and parking

Comments from

9 At consultation stage, several issues were highlighted. These included a the provision of a site-specific travel plan, the need for accomodation to be exclusively let to local universities, bike pooling, visitor cycle parking and provision of a constuction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan.

10 It has been agreed that a site-specific travel plan, using the King’s Cross Central Travel Plan as a foundation, will be secured via legal agreement, which is welcomed.

11 The student accommodation shall only be occupied by students enrolled on a full-time or part-time course within Camden or an adjoining borough, or Kensington & Chelsea, where the provider of that course is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for . Transport for London (TfL) is satisfied that this will be secured by condition.

12 The bike-pooling scheme will no longer be implemented. The transport consultants confirmed that as a replacement, 21 foldable bikes will be made available to students on a rental basis. TfL is satisfied with this approach, which is in addition to ongoing discussions regarding a cycle hire docking station, the provision of onsite cycle parking and a site-specific travel plan. Additionally, the provision of visitor cycle parking will not be increased. The applicant’s transport consultant has clarified how visitors would be able to access the secure cycle parking, and TfL is satisfied that this will not compromise the secure nature of the cycle parking. As such, the proposal is acceptable, and it is expected that this management solution will committed within the travel plan.

13 TfL is satisfied that the construction process will be adequately managed through the existing legal agreement, which considers King’s Cross Central as a whole. As such, submission of a construction logistics plan is no longer required. Additionally, TfL is satisfied that the day-to-day servicing of the site will not be of detriment to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and local highways.

14 The student management plan will be updated with further details regarding the move-in and move-out strategy for the students. This will be secured via legal agreement.

15 TfL supports the car-free designation of the site, thereby prohibiting occupiers from being issued with on-street parking permits.

16 In summary, all outstanding transport issues have been resolved, including a site-specific travel plan, construction logistics and delivery and servicing arrangements, cycle parking and hire and accommodation. The application is now considered to be in accordance with the London Plan and is acceptable in transport terms.

Sustainability

17 At the consultation stage, the Mayor advised that he wished the applicant to commit to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant energy efficiency model, engage in further discussions regarding the wider implementation of the King’s Cross Central scheme, and provide the underlying assumptions of the renewable energy strategy.

18 The applicant has advised that committal to a 2010 Building Regulations model is not feasible, given that the planning application was submitted prior to the adoption of the updated model, and that design work started several months prior to this. The developer has provided additional information demonstrating that energy efficiency is higher than that required by the

page 3 previous 2006 model, and that ongoing work is determining ways in which efficiency can continue to be raised. This position is accepted.

19 The applicant has provided further information on the proposed decentralised energy network delivery (including basic timescales) within the King’s Cross Central area. The T6 development will be the ‘trigger’ for the commencement of operation of the completed CHP energy centre that will eventually supply energy across the King’s Cross Central area. Information has also been provided on the assumptions underlying the energy strategy, along with support from Camden Council, to demonstrate that the model is robust, which is accepted by GLA officers. Response to consultation

20 Objections were received from approximately 20 residents and residents’ groups. Specific relevant concerns included:

 Compliance with the masterplan: After the expense and time taken to approve the original King’s Cross Central development, this is evidence that the original proposal allowed too much flexibility for the developer, and could lead to similar examples of non- compliant development.

 Tall building issues: Is at odds with the generally low-rise character and ‘human scale’ of London and the local area. Allowing such a tall building could set a precedent, and would detrimentally affect local residents’ access to light, views, privacy and other matters of residential amenity. Views and settings of listed buildings would be detrimentally affected. Additionally, the proposal is not in accordance with best practice guidance.

 Urban design: The proposed building would be unattractive, and the proposed rooms would be too small to appeal to students or their needs. There would be minimal benefits for existing residents in terms of improvement to the public realm.

 Access: Additional wheelchair flats and parking bays should be provided.

 Student occupation: Residents are temporary and would not form a ‘connection’ with the area or existing community. Rents would likely be expensive and unaffordable by students. It would be preferable for such accommodation to be dispersed throughout the site, rather than concentrated in one area.

 Infrastructure: The increased population would lead to pressure on local shops, services, and roads.

21 The University of the Arts London, and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) sent letters of support for the proposal to the Council.

22 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) expressed strong support for the proposal, noting its specific support for the location and design of the tall building, materials, and provision of the plaza, but stating that improvements or further thought could be given/made to the north elevation, solar shading, flexibility of the accommodation units, public art and relationship with the public realm.

23 The proposal was considered to be unobjectionable by English Heritage (built heritage and archaeology), the Environment Agency, Haringey Council and Islington Council. Thames Water does not object, on the basis of compliance with the original outline permission’s condition on provision of drainage infrastructure.

page 4 24 The strategic planning matters raised within the objections were either discussed within the consultation report (PDU/2647a/01), within this report, or are part of the extant outline permission for the site. Camden Council has addressed local issues within its report to the planning committee, with the development recommended for approval by members. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

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

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

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

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

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

30 The issues outstanding at the consultation stage have been resolved. As there are no outstanding strategic issues, there is no reason for the Mayor to direct refusal or take over the application, and as such, he is content to allow the Council to determine the application.

page 5

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Glen Rollings, Case Officer 020 7983 4315 email [email protected]

page 6

planning report PDU/2647a/01 12 October 2010 Plot T6, King’s Cross Central

in the London Borough of Camden planning application no. 2010/4468/P

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

The proposal Development of student housing (657 bed spaces) in a building of between 14 and 27 storeys, along with a retail unit at ground floor level.

The applicant The applicants are King’s Cross General Partner Ltd and Urbanest (UK), and the architect is Glenn Howells Architects.

Strategic issues This is a full planning application for new student housing, although outline permission for student housing already exists, as part of the wider King’s Cross Central masterplan. The principle of student housing on the site is acceptable.

While the proposal is for a tall building not previously proposed as part of the masterplan, there are no strategic design issues of concern, and the impact of the proposal on nearby heritage features is acceptable.

There are some outstanding transport and energy matters that should be resolved before the application is referred back to the Mayor at Stage II.

Recommendation That Camden Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 64 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 65 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

1 On 7 September 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Camden Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 18 October 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,

page 7 and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of … more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

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

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

5 The site occupies the north-eastern extremity of the main (largest) parcel within the King’s Cross Central development (as distinct from the ‘Triangle’ site east of ). It is located at the end of a row of sites which have a ‘T’ designation, which are intended to form a terrace of buildings, which will follow the arc of the railway line that forms the main site’s northern boundary.

6 The site has two street frontages: York Way to the east, and a new street (Canal Street) within the King’s Cross Central site to the south, and is bounded by the railway viaduct to the north. Access to the site is from Canal Street, which connects to York Way, part of the Transport for London road network (TLRN). York Way is served by bus routes 274 and 390, providing southbound services towards King’s Cross station and the City, and northbound services towards Camden. King’s Cross St. Pancras, 700m and a 15 minute walk away to the south, is the nearest Underground station, with access to six different underground lines and connecting international and national rail services. The public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 2 (where 1 is low and 6 is high).

7 Within the overall King’s Cross Central masterplan, which has outline planning permission, the surrounding uses will include employment, retail and residential. The outline permission allows for the development of up to 650 units of student housing, with no more than 150 studios and 500 cluster flats. The permission is not prescriptive in the uses to be developed on the ‘T’ sites.

8 The site is within the King’s Cross Opportunity Area, as identified within the London Plan and the draft replacement London Plan.

Details of the proposal

9 The development would provide 657 student bedrooms and bed spaces within a building of between 14 and 27 storeys. Bed spaces would be set out in a mix of single studio bedrooms, and shared facility cluster flats of between two and eight bedrooms. Student common areas would be provided on the first and 13th floor levels, with outdoor terraces at the 13th and 25th floors. At ground floor level, the scheme would accommodate a ground floor retail unit of approximately 300 sq.m, as well as secure cycle parking, plant and store areas and office/administration functions.

10 The building would be entered from Canal Street via a landscaped courtyard, with the retail element on facing the intersection of York Way and Canal Street. A service road to serve the ‘T’ blocks would have an undercroft entrance passing through the site, and the road would then run westwards along the rear of the ‘T’ blocks. This road would provide access to the service areas of the proposed T6 building, and three dedicated disabled parking bays.

page 8 11 The finished levels of the site would be set above the level of the York Way / Canal Street intersection and as such there would be challenges to access between the street, specifically York Way, and the site.

12 The proposal is above the approved outline height parameters for the Kings Cross Central development, hence the need for a new application for this proposal. The extant approval provides for a building of up to 67m AOD within the ‘T’ sites, with up to 15% of proposed floorspace able to exceed this level. At T6, this scheme proposes a building with a maximum height of 104.9m AOD (based on an anticipated ground level of about 25.5m AOD). Case history

13 The GLA was approached by Camden Council officers in April 2010 and requested to provide informal advice on the developing proposal. A formal pre-application meeting was held in August 2010, which was attended by the applicant and architect, Transport for London, GLA and Camden Council officers. This application largely addresses the comments that were raised at both stages. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

14 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; Housing SPG EiP draft  Retail/town centre uses London Plan; PPG13, PPS4  Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework SPG  Historic environment London Plan; PPS5  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Transport and parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Ambient noise / air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; draft replacement air quality strategy; PPS23; PPG 24  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment

15 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2006 Camden Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

16 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The draft replacement London Plan, published in October 2009 for consultation.

page 9  The Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies Development Plan Document, both of which have been ratified by the Secretary of State and are likely to be approved by Camden Council at its meeting on 6 November 2010. Should these be ratified, they will replace the Unitary Development Plan on this date.  The Camden Council Site Allocations Development Plan Document (preferred options stage).  The King’s Cross Opportunity Area Planning Framework. Housing

17 The London Plan recognises in paragraph 3.39 that the provision of purpose-built student housing adds to the overall supply of housing and may reduce pressure on the existing supply of market and affordable housing, and in paragraph 3.53 states that where a proposal for development relates solely to student housing, it will not normally be appropriate to apply a planning obligation for an element of social rent or intermediate housing. Paragraph 3.69 of the Plan states that shared accommodation or houses in multiple occupation often provide housing for people unable to gain access to social rented housing or to afford market home ownership or rents, and where such accommodation is of a reasonable standard, its provision helps contribute to meeting housing demand and should be encouraged.

18 London Plan policy 3A.25 (Higher and further education) states that the Mayor will and boroughs should work with the London Development Agency and the higher and further education sectors to ensure that the needs of the education sectors are addressed in Development Plan Documents, and that this will include supporting the provision of student accommodation.

19 Draft Replacement London Plan policy 3.8 states that strategic and local requirements for student housing meeting a demonstrable need are to be addressed by working closely with higher and further education agencies and without compromising capacity for conventional homes.

20 At a strategic level, there has been a notable increase in applications for student accommodation in recent times. This raises concern that the impact of an increased amount of student accommodation being built in London is not being considered in a holistic way. The draft revised London Plan changes the emphasis of strategic policy on student accommodation to an approach that more carefully considers both supply and demand, together with a more dispersed distribution and different forms of provision. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is capacity for upwards of 17,000 student places, addressing these demands should not compromise capacity to meet the need for conventional dwellings, especially affordable family homes, or undermine policy to secure mixed and balanced communities. There is an expectation within the text of draft replacement London Plan policy 3.8 that unless student accommodation is secured through a planning agreement for occupation by members of specified educational institutions for the predominant part of the year, it will normally be subject to the requirements of affordable housing policy.

21 The approved King’s Cross masterplan allows for up to 650 student units to be accommodated across the site. This proposal would provide 236 units, arranged as:

 95 studio units, including 12 wheelchair accessible rooms; and

 141 cluster units comprising 562 bedrooms (478 with ensuites, including 23 wheelchair bedrooms).

22 The developer intends that the development would form part of a student housing zone, which would also include postgraduate student accommodation within the adjacent plot T5.

page 10 23 The applicant is aware of the draft replacement London Plan’s preferred position of having a preferred a university partner in place. The intent of the policy is to prevent speculative student accommodation from being developed, and such development in the past has sometimes resulted in accommodation becoming unaffordable for students. The housing development partner, Urbannest, considers that there is a market for student housing within this location but the applicant has no tertiary partner, citing the current uncertainty regarding tertiary funding as a reason for this. The applicant also states that there are a variety of unit sizes within the proposed scheme, which will address various levels of rental affordability. However the extant outline planning permission has established the principle of student housing on the King’s Cross Central site and is therefore not expected to displace the proposed or presumed delivery of affordable housing, including affordable planning homes, which would be delivered elsewhere within the King’s Cross Central development. The proposed number of student units is within the overall level allowed by the extant outline permission, and the principle of student accommodation in this location remains acceptable.

24 Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has made reasonable efforts to seek a tertiary partner, including discussions with University College London, the London School of Economics, City University and the School of International Studies, all of which are nearby. Additionally it has had discussions with the University of the Arts London, which will shortly relocate Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design to King’s Cross. The applicant should provide evidence of these discussions prior to the application being referred back to the Mayor at Stage II. Retail / town centre uses

25 The site is part of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and a mix of uses is encouraged. As part of an approved masterplan, the site forms part of a wider canvas across which a mix of uses can be considered. The provision of a retail unit, of a size suitable for convenience use to address local needs, is acceptable and will not detrimentally affect the wider mix of uses. Tall buildings / views

26 The proposed building is higher than the approved parameter heights, and must be considered within the strategic context – specifically the views within the revised London View Management Framework supplementary planning guidance (LVMF) – and townscape views. T6 is adjacent to a tall building site (S5) as designated within the masterplan. S5 was planned as a ‘marker’ site for the northern entrance to the masterplan area, and to address views through the area. T6 is likely to share that function, with the two buildings likely to form a stronger gateway working in tandem. However, in order to avoid an inappropriate impression of bulkiness, the detailed design of the proposed building on S5 will need to ensure that both buildings would be able to be recognised as separate entities when viewed from a distance and around the site.

27 The design and access statement’s visual assessment assesses the proposed building in the context of long, medium and short-range views. Strategic LVMF viewpoints assessed include Alexandra Palace, Parliament Hill, and Kenwood ( Heath). Within these views, the building would be most visible from Primrose Hill, where it would visibly be the tallest building within the context of the approved masterplan parameter heights. Even so, the building will not affect the views of strategic landmarks and the development is likely to avoid contributing to a ‘channelling’ effect of views of St Paul’s Cathedral.

28 Local views will be assessed by Camden Council, but the indicative visualisations demonstrate that the building will be particularly visible from the residential streets to the north of the railway. The view south along York Way from near South Villas shows that the building will

page 11 clearly be visible, but the slender massing of the building enables to it positively contribute to the legibility of the King’s Cross Central site.

29 The draft design and access statement demonstrates that the building design addresses the principles given to the guidance on tall buildings jointly published by English Heritage and CABE. Historic environment

30 The T6 site is close to the Grade-II listed Granary building, which forms the centrepiece of the King’s Cross Central northern area masterplan. While the applicant’s townscape visualisations from Goods Way shows that the proposed building would be hidden behind the Granary in the two chosen views, the building would be visible in other views, notably from within the longer view along the Transit Street/Cubitt Square axis. There is a reasonable separation distance between the sites, and the proposed building would be read within the emerging modern townscape around the retained heritage building.

31 The applicant has not supplied local views of the proposed building against the existing profiles of the Grade-I listed King’s Cross and St Pancras station buildings. However when viewed from , the T6 site is more than a kilometre to the north of the viewpoint, and the impact against the immediate profiles of the listed buildings will be limited. The proposed building is therefore not expected to have any conservation impacts on the listed buildings, although Camden Council will take into account the consultation response of English Heritage as part of its townscape assessment. Urban design

32 The general principles of the design are sound and the design approach is supported. The design of the building would ensure that it is recognisable within the context of the masterplan area. The massing of the proposed building, specifically the tower element, is slender when viewed from the north and south, and the concepts presented at the meeting and within the draft design and access statement demonstrate that it would have a positive contribution to the area when viewed from within the local environment or at a distance.

33 The building appears to ‘meet the ground’ effectively and use the double-height ground floor to its advantage. The main entrance would be clear and unambiguous, and the active frontage provided by the reception area and glazed first-floor common room is welcomed.

34 The appearance of the building, as well as the selection of materials, is well considered. Although there is an area on the tower’s south-west elevation that comprises a vertical area of render with minimal glazing, the mix of materials and horizontal relief will result in a reasonable appearance.

35 The layout of some of the student cluster flats is cluttered, with features such as kitchenettes in corridors. However the recently issued draft replacement Housing SPG do not prescribe residential standards (including internal room sizes) for student accommodation. A small percentage of rooms will face north, overlooking the railway. 98% of rooms would achieve an adequate level of internal daylight (based on commonly accepted industry standards) and measures to contain internal noise have been assessed within the application and are likely to provide an acceptable level of residential accommodation, subject to conditions on any planning approval. The inclusion of opportunities for natural light within the corridors near the lift cores at each level is supported. The Council should also consider methods to mitigate the potential for disturbance to occupants of the bedrooms below and next to common rooms.

page 12 36 At the pre-application stage, officers were concerned that the service road entrance would not be overlooked. While this is still the case, the applicant has confirmed that the road would initially be gated, with a review prior to the construction of the other ‘T’ blocks. The applicant should clarify with the Council the access arrangements for the disabled parking in this location, as this is not mentioned within the Access Statement, and also how this location could provide a safe and secure environment in the future. Access

37 It is imperative that the proposals achieve the highest standards of inclusive design, as required by London Plan Policy 4B.5. The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development.

38 Educational establishments have a duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to ensure that their facilities and services are accessible for disabled students. There is currently a huge shortage of wheelchair accessible homes in London, and one of the biggest barriers to disabled students being able to live and study in London is access to suitable accommodation. In the spirit of equal opportunities and inclusivity, the ability to accommodate disabled students should be fully integrated into any student housing development.

39 The access statement demonstrates that the proposal will meet and in some cases exceed the requirements of Building Regulations (Part M). For building regulations purposes, student accommodation falls into the same category as hotels and as such one in twenty rooms (5%) should be wheelchair accessible. However, given the shortage of wheelchair accessible student accommodation, the GLA encourages a higher level of provision. For London Plan purposes, specifically policy 3A.5, as a form of residential development, all of the student flats should meet Lifetime Homes standards and ten per cent should be wheelchair accessible. 5.5% will be built as wheelchair accessible flats, with a further 4% capacity designed as being easily adaptable. The access statement notes: “Further rooms have been identified which could be adapted in response to additional demand, with more significant works such as creating a large studio unit from two cluster bedrooms. However, as these are not ‘readily’ adaptable, they have not been included in the 4% figure.” The level of provision is acceptable and complies with policy.

40 The design of the building is legible and the statement mentions that other features, such as signage, will be incorporated as part of the landscaping and management plans. Common rooms will be designed to accommodate and allow easy movement for wheelchair users and the management plan also acknowledges the requirements of disabled students. The provision of two lifts in each of the two main cores, to ensure that stair-free access can be maintained in the event of breakdown or periods of maintenance, is welcomed.

41 The level changes within the external environment present a particular challenge on this site. The application site boundary includes some areas of York Way and Canal Street and the access statement considers footpath levels and gradients. It is noted that while there is reasonable access on gradients of 1 in 20 or less within most of the site, the Canal Road/York Way intersection pavement cannot be graded at less than 1 in 18. This is within the overall 1 in 15 limit that was agreed under the terms of the original masterplan. Stair and ramped access between York Way and the retail unit entrance is also separated in this location, although the ramp is located to ensure the shortest separation between the two, retaining a reasonable gradient.

page 13 Transport and parking

Comments from Transport for London

42 As mentioned within the site description, the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of the site is 2 (where 1 is low and 6 is high). However, development of King’s Cross Central site is likely to result in a better level of accessibility.

43 No site-specific travel plan has been submitted supporting the application. Prior to planning permission being granted, Transport for London (TfL) would expect a tailored travel plan to be submitted in detail to the council and TfL for approval. The travel plan must be secured by planning condition to be approved in consultation with TfL. This will ensure general conformity with London Plan policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity, and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.3 Assessing transport capacity.

44 A trip generation technical note was submitted as supporting information. This was based upon data derived from the TRICS database. It should be noted that the TRAVL database provides the most up-to-date and appropriate sites and would result in a more robust assessment. Future development of other plots within the King’s Cross Central area should include transport assessments/statement prepared in accordance with TfL’s transport assessment best practice guidance. TfL acknowledges that the findings of the note indicate that the proposed student accommodation would not result in any increased travel impact above that identified in the 2005 King’s Cross transport assessment.

45 There is currently no agreement in place linking the student accommodation to a university. To encourage short distance walking and cycling trips TfL would recommend that a target or obligation is sought to let the accommodation exclusively to local universities.

46 TfL welcomes the car free nature of the development. Three disabled car parking spaces are proposed. The London Plan now advises that all on-site car parking be provided with electric vehicle charging points in line with emerging best practice and draft replacement London Plan policy. However, given the only 3 spaces are proposed it would restrictive to allow these to be shared between disabled and electric vehicles.

47 TfL welcomes the provision of 337 cycle parking spaces, 137 of which are at ground floor level. TfL requests clarification whether the bike-pooling scheme, proposed at pre-application stage, will be undertaken and how this will operate. TfL welcomes the provision of visitor cycle parking stands, however eight spaces is likely to be insufficient to meet likely demand.

48 Both a construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan should be provided in support of the application. Both should be secured by planning conditions. This will ensure general conformity with London Plan policies 3C.17 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic and 3C.25 Freight strategy and draft replacement London Plan policy 6.14 Freight. Sustainable development

49 The proposal is accompanied by an environmental sustainability plan that proposes measures to achieve a BREEAM multi-residential rating of ‘excellent’. Among the measures proposed are:

 A ‘whole house’ ventilation strategy.

page 14  A green roof above the reception area and brown roofs above the main roof elements, along with some photovoltaic panels above the 13th floor.

 Solar shading features within the façade, including thermal glazing recessed up to 600mm behind the main south-facing facades.

 A planting strategy that encourages biodiversity and a building orientation that allows open spaces to receive direct sunlight.

 A sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) within the context of the main King’s Cross Central drainage system. Porous paving is not being considered due to the underlying ground conditions, and rainwater collection is not practical due to the restrictions on basement structures and cost implication of separate distribution systems. Water-saving measures will be installed around the building.

Energy

50 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. Further revisions and information is required and the carbon dioxide savings verified, before the proposal can be considered wholly acceptable.

Be lean – energy efficiency standards

51 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features including low energy light fittings, minimising thermal bridges and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.

52 Using 2006 Building Regulations compliance software, the development is estimated to emit 485 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of passive design and energy efficiency measures. Based on the information provided, the proposed development does not appear to achieve any carbon savings from energy efficiency alone, compared with a 2010 Building Regulations-compliant development.

53 Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, the applicant should model, and commit to, additional measures that can be adopted to enable the development to exceed 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone. The applicant should also provide a table comparing the proposed values for energy efficiency parameters to those used in the 2010 Building Regulations Notional Building.

Be clean – district heating

54 The applicant has provided a commitment to optimising the use of site-wide, low carbon district heating and to linking in this plot to the district-heating network serving the overall Kings Cross Central development. This commitment is welcomed and the approach is in line with London Plan policy. The applicant however should provide further information and details of discussions regarding the implementation of the Kings Cross Central scheme. In particular, an indication of potential timescales for connection should be provided.

Combined heat and power

55 The Kings Cross Central development will include 3 No. 2.0MWth gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) units with thermal store in building T1. It is proposed that T6 will be supplied by

page 15 the CHP via the connection to the site wide district heating system. The development is estimated to emit 387 tonnes of regulated carbon dioxide emissions per annum after the application of CHP. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 98 tonnes per annum (20%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Cooling

56 The applicant highlights that the retail unit, reception and common room will require active cooling. The retail unit may gain heat through lighting whilst the student reception area and common rooms could be affected by solar gains due to their orientation and the extent of glazing. It is proposed that these are controlled using reverse cycle air source heat pumps (air to air), which will allow an energy efficient cooling system.

Be green – renewable energy technologies

57 The proposal provides for 235 sq.m. of photovoltaic (PV) panels – i.e. a 29kWp PV array. A claimed reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 32 tonnes per annum (8.5%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy. However, the applicant should provide the assumption behind this figure as this estimate of CO2 savings appears high.

Summary

58 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 354 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, the applicant should estimate the overall savings in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 compliant development. Ambient noise / air quality

59 The building would successfully mitigate against the possibility of road and railway noise and vibration disturbance to residents. The thermal glazing and natural ventilation systems will provide adequate insulation and ventilation, although each bedroom will be provided with a small opening window for flush ventilation. The nearby railway lines have either been recently built or refurbished and vibration is unlikely. The proposal is a car-free scheme and would not contribute greatly to degradation in air quality. Biodiversity

60 As well as the aforementioned green and brown roof areas, the development’s landscaping plan will incorporate features such as multi-species planting and bird and bat boxes. The spaces are expected to contribute to the wider King’s Cross Central biodiversity strategy, which recognises the biodiversity role of the site and its contribution to biodiversity corridors (including the railways and Regent’s Canal).

61 The design and access statement describes a lighting strategy that appears to be low-key and will not have a substantial impact on biodiversity. Legal considerations

62 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his

page 16 reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

63 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

64 London Plan policies on housing, retail and town centre uses, tall buildings and views, the historic environment, urban design, access, transport and parking, sustainable development, ambient noise and air quality, and biodiversity are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Housing: The principle of student housing has previously been established, and although there is no identified tertiary partner, there is sufficient demand for a range of student unit sizes with no detriment to the previously approved level of affordable housing.  Retail / town centre uses: The proposed retail unit would be small in scale and serve local needs.  Tall buildings and views: The building would be visible within strategic views, but have no detrimental impact on protected landmarks.

 Historic environment: There would be no detrimental impacts on protected buildings.

 Urban design: The proposal would achieve a good standard of design.

 Access: The design would mostly overcome steep external gradients and provide an appropriate level of wheelchair adapted student units.

 Transport and parking: The further information and commitments are needed.

 Sustainable development: Further energy information is required before compliance with the London Plan can be confirmed.

 Ambient noise and air quality: There would be no detrimental impacts.

 Biodiversity: The proposal would contribute to the improvement of the area’s biodiversity.

65 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:  Urban design: Further study regarding the security of the service road access, particularly for users of the disabled parking spaces.  Transport and parking: Agreement of a travel plan, an increase in the level of visitor cycle parking and the provision of a construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan.

page 17  Sustainable development: Commitment to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant energy efficiency model, further discussions regarding the wider implementation of the King’s Cross Central scheme, and provision of the underlying assumptions of the renewable energy strategy.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Glen Rollings, Case Officer 020 7983 4315 email [email protected]

page 18