Application for Full Planning & Conservation Area Consent

Application for Full Planning & Conservation Area Consent On Behalf of 3&10 Finsbury Square Ltd October 2010

Planning, Design and Access Statement Statement prepared by Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design

With:

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Ltd Applicant

Sheppard Robson Architect

Waterman Group Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Consultant, Energy and Environmental, BREEAM, Traffic

Expedition Structural Engineers

Gardiner & Theobald Cost consultants

Peter Stewart Consultancy Townscape

Arborsphere Ltd Trees Jennifer Ross, Director

Tibbalds Planning & Urban Design 19 Maltings Place 169 Tower Bridge Road Museum of London Archaeology London SE1 3JB

Telephone 020 7089 2121 Facsimile 020 7089 2120 Thomson Ecology Ecology [email protected] www.tibbalds.co.uk ❚❚Contents

1 Introduction 3 4 Analysis, Concept & Design Evolution 33 Appendices 101

1.1 Introduction to the project 4 4.1 The original design brief 34 Appendix 1 Email from David Fowler, London Borough of Islington 1.2 Content of the application 4 4.2 The evolution of the design response 35 (24th March 2009) 102 1.3 Project team 5 4.3 Design development 42 Appendix 2 1.4 Document structure 4 CABE Correspondence 103 5 Development Proposals 49 ■■ Response to Design Review Panel Meeting 2 Site Background 7 5.1 The development 50 (12th August 2009) ■■ Letter dated 18th December 2009 2.1 Site location 8 5.2 The facade 52 Appendix 3 2.2 Site description 9 5.3 Palette & materials 54 English Heritage letter (29th April 2009) 106 2.3 Recent planning history 10 5.4 Structural design 55 Appendix 4 2.4 Policy status of the site 10 5.5 Refuse & servicing 56 GLA letter (5th June 2009) 107

2.5 Relevant planning policy 11 5.6 Energy & sustainability 57 Appendix 5 Expedition structural and civil engineering 3 Townscape & Heritage Appraisal 13 6 Access, Social Inclusion & Safety 65 Relevant extracts from: Stage C Report (March 2010) 110 3.1 Introduction 14 6.1 Introduction 66

3.2 Basis & method of appraisal 14 6.2 Legislative & planning context 66

3.3 Specific townscape & heritage policy context 15 6.3 Inclusive design 66

3.4 History of the site and its context 19 6.4 Safety & security 66

3.5 Townscape & spatial analysis 23 7 Planning Policy Consideration 67 3.6 Assessing heritage values and significance of 7.1 Introduction 68 heritage assets 28 7.2 Assessment of development proposals 68 3.7 Assessment of the Conservation Area as a whole 29 7.3 Urban design 73

3.8 Assessment of Finsbury Square 8 Key Benefits 77 and the application site 30 8.1 Summary of key benefits 78 3.9 Design opportunities for a replacement building 31 9 Application Drawings 3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 2 1 IntroductionIntroduction

Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 3 ■■ Reason for Refusal 3: The height, scale and 1.1 Introduction to the project 1.1.8 The first of these processes will involve the 1.1.14 It is, however acknowledged that despite the moves design of the building would detract from submission of planning appeals in respect of the made by Pembroke to try and reach a compromise important views of Triton Court (as a designated 1.1.1 In March 2010 planning and conservation area refused applications P100555 and P100680. position that it may not be feasible to negotiate local landmark) on the north side of Finsbury applications were submitted to the London Borough an appropriate consent with LBI. Given this Square, and would be contrary to policy D18 of 1.1.9 The second process has involved the preparation of of Islington by 3&10 Finsbury Square Ltd (referred situation Pembroke has instructed their legal and the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002, a revised set proposals, which seek to address the to as Pembroke Real Estate) to construct a new planning advisors to ensure that should this revised policies 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan (as reasons for refusal advanced by LB Islington. landmark headquarters office building on a key site application be refused that sufficient time is built amended 2008), and Strategic Policy 9 of the within Finsbury Square in the London Borough of 1.1.10 We confirm that these revised proposals have into the programme to enable this revised planning Islington Core Strategy Submission Draft 2010. Isington. been presented to both Ashley Nyman, the LBI submission to be co-joined with the appeals to be 1.1.4 The report also recommended that conservation case officer and GLA officers. Whilst we still await submitted in respect of the original planning and 1.1.2 The application (LBI ref: P100555 and P100680) area consent be refused on the basis that the feedback from LBI, the GLA has confirmed that the conservation applications such that they can all be which involved the demolition of the existing poor demolition, in the absence of an appropriate revised proposals overcome concerns raised in heard together at the same public inquiry. qualiy buildings at 3 &10 Finsbury Square and the scheme for redevelopment would fail to preserve respect of the previous application proposals and construction of a new ground plus nine-storey 1.1.15 Based on discussions with the Inspectorate and enhance the Conservation Area. that as a result they are now in a position to fully building and two basement levels to provide therefore our intention is that the registration of endorse the scheme. some 20,280sqm (GEA) of commercial (Class B1) 1.1.5 The Committee upheld the officer’s this planning submission will be followed by the floorspace were considered by members of the recommendation and the applications were refused. 1.1.11 Given the positive response from the GLA and in submission of appeals in relation to the previous Planning Committee on 29th July 2010. Decision notices were subsequently issued by LBI the context of the stated programme objectives refused application. on 1st September 2010. Pembroke has instructed the team to prepare and 1.1.3 The case officer’s report to this Committee 1.1.16 Having explained the background to this revised submit revised planning and conservation area recommended that the application be refused 1.1.6 Following these reasons for refusal Pembroke and submission we now go onto to describe the consent applications to LBI. planning permission for the following reasons: their investors have been considering their position. proposed development and the content of this We confirm that they remain committed to the site 1.1.12 In pursuit of this instruction this Planning Design application. ■■ Reason for Refusal 1: The height, scale and and to the delivery of an office building of the highest and Access Statement is one of a number of design of the building, is considered to be over quality. A key driver for the project is, however documents that have been prepared and submitted dominant within the established framework programme and the wish to deliver a completed in support of this revised planning submission. It is, of Finsbury Square and to break the overall building to the market by 2013. This programme however the key document as it provides a detailed harmony and consistency of scale within objective necessitates a start on site in early to mid explanation in terms of the history of the project; the the square. The proposal is contrary to the 2011. content of the revised applications; the actions that Conservation Area Design Guidelines for Bunhill have influenced the revisions to both the design and Fields/Finsbury Square (policy 22.8), policies 1.1.7 The applicant is anxious to achieve a delivery the mix of uses; the component parts of the revised D1, D4, D5 D18 and D22 of the Islington Unitary target of 2013 in order to arrest the decline of proposals and how they relate to the prevailing Development Plan 2002, policies 4B.1, 4B.2, Finsbury Square, which is, gathering momentum planning policy framework. 4B.10, 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan (as as occupiers leave obsolete buildings; in particular amended 2008), and Strategic Policy 9 of the the decision by Bloomberg to vacate all of its 1.1.13 It is Pembroke’s hope that the changes to scheme Islington Core Strategy Submission Draft 2010; accommodation on the south side is a major blow will be sufficient to secure a negotiated planning to the prosperity of Finsbury Square. Given this consent and that their design team can work with ■■ Reason for Refusal 2: The proposal fails to situation a key priority for the project is to secure an officers and members to reach a consensus as provide for a mix of land uses, in particular acceptable planning consent as quickly as possible. quickly as possible such that they can get into a residential use, either integral to the development Based on internal discussions with Pembroke’s position whereby they can deliver their building or nearby to the site in order to help establish legal and planning team we confirm that it has been within the projected timescales. mixed-use neighbourhoods. The proposal is decided to pursue two parallel processes in order contrary to policies E3, Imp14 and Imp16 of the to maximise the potential to secure a planning Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 and permission within the timescales set. policies 3B.3 and 5G.3 of the London Plan (as amended 2008); and

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 4 A1 and/ or Class A3 and/ or A4) at lower 1.2 Content of the application The original reports submitted with the previous ground and ground floor levels. application are appended to each document. A new service access from Finsbury Square. 1.2.1 In order to address the reasons for refusal set -- out in LBI’s decision letter of 1st September 2010 -- A green roof and landscape terrace . Pembroke Real Estate has: -- Ancillary plant and equipment.

■■ A: Removed the ninth storey of the building 1.2.3 In addition to this ‘Planning, Design and Access proposed by the previous planning submission Statement’ a number of other documents have been and modified the form and the appearance of the prepared and submitted in support of this revised eighth storey. full planning application and conservation area consent including: ■■ B: Re-designed basement level one and the ground floor of the building such that it as the ■■ A covering letter; potential to accommodate either office (Class ■■ The relevant planning and conservation area B1) and/ or retail (Class A1) and/ or restaurant consent application form and certificates; (Class A3) and/ or bar (Class A4). At this stage it is not possible to define the precise nature ■■ Transport Statement and Draft Travel Plan, of this floorspace or extent/ configuration of prepared by Waterman Group; each use. This will depend upon the specific ■■ Energy Statement, prepared by Waterman requirements of the eventual occupiers of the Group; building and hence a degree of flexibility is ■■ Sustainability Statement, incorporating a required at this planning application stage. We BREEAM offices 2008 pre-assessment confirm that in parallel with this re-design that estimator, compiled by Waterman Group; due consideration has been had to the servicing and waste handling requirements of each of ■■ Archaeological desk-based assessment, the proposed uses such that sufficient capacity prepared by the Museum of London; exists to accommodate all of this proposed ■■ Arboricultural Report, prepared by Arborsphere flexible space being used for Class A uses. It is Ltd; envisaged that the eventual use and layout of this space will be controlled by a condition attached ■■ Statement of Community Involvement, prepared to any future planning consent. by Tibbalds; and

1.2.2 In pursuit of these revisions this revised application ■■ Planning application drawings, area schedule includes the following: and supporting illustrative material prepared by Sheppard Robson. ■■ Conservation Area Consent for the: -- ‘Demolition of 3 & 10 Finsbury Square’. 1.2.4 Given the relatively minor nature of the changes that have been made to this revised planning ■■ A full planning application to construct a ground submission, when compared to the previous plus eight-storey building and two basement refused planning submission the above material levels to provide: submitted in support of this revised planning -- 19,456 sqm (GEA) of floorspace, comprising submission highlights any changes that have arisen up to 17,022sqm (GEA) of Class B1 office as a result of the revisions made to this planning floorspace at basement and floors one to submission. Each supporting document contains eight and up to 2,434sqm (GEA) of flexible an addendum which highlights relevant changes. mixed use floorspace (Class B1 and/ or Class

Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 5 1.3 Project team 1.4 Document structure

1.3.1 The application has been prepared by the 1.4.1 This statement is structured as follows: applicant’s agent, Tibbalds Planning & Urban ■■ Section 1 – Explains the reason for the Design and architects, Sheppard Robson, with submission of this revised planning application input from a comprehensive team of advisors. The and describes the content of this revised core project team and their roles include: submission. 3 & 10 Finsbury Applicant ■■ Section 2 – Describes the application site, Square Ltd, planning history and the current planning a company policy framework as it relates to the site and the beneficially owned proposed redevelopment. by a private partnership affiliated ■■ Section 3 – Examines the background to the with Pembroke Real designation of the Bunhill Fields/ Finsbury Estate Square Conservation Area, its historical

development and its character and appearance. Sheppard Architect Robson ■■ Section 4 – Describes the client brief, key

principles that underpin the design and how it Tibbalds Planning & Planning has evolved in response to the consultations that Urban Design have taken place through the process.

■■ Section 5 – Describes in detail the development Waterman Group Mechanical proposals, including built form; choice of & Electrical materials; access and parking; structure and Engineering services and energy and sustainability. Consultant, Energy and Environmental, ■■ Section 6 – Discusses access, social inclusion

BREEAM, Traffic and safety and how the design provides both for an inclusive environment and for those with Expedition Structural Engineers disabilities.

Gardiner & Cost consultants ■■ Section 7 – Explores the implications of the Theobald proposals in relation to existing planning policy and guidance at the national, regional and local Peter Stewart Townscape levels. Consultancy ■■ Section 8 – Provides a summary of the

proposals and outlines the key benefits of the Arborsphere Ltd Trees development. Museum of Archaeology London

Thomson Ecology Ecology

Herbert Smith Lawyers

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 6 2 Site background

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 7 2.1 Site location

2.1.1 Finsbury Square is an historic green space, situated on the northern edge of the City in the London Borough of Islington. It is enclosed by a number of large, predominantly commercial office buildings which date from 1920s to the present day.

2.1.2 The site itself occupies a highly prominent location on the western side of the Square, and is situated half way between Moorgate and Old Street roundabout.

2.1.3 The site is situated between two historic green spaces, the Honourable Artillery Company grounds to the west and Finsbury Square to the east. Existing office buildings lie adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the site.

2.1.4 The site is highly accessible by public transport (PTAL 6b). Two London underground stations (Old Street and Moorgate) are located some 400 metres to the north and south, and 7 bus routes stop on City Road.

Figure 2.1: London Borough of Islington Figure 2.2: Aerial of site

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 8 2.2 Site description 2.2.6 These factors have led the owners of the site to conclude that the stage has been reached whereby 2.2.1 The Site covers approximately 0.2 hectares. It is it is appropriate to pursue the comprehensive currently occupied by two buildings, which together redevelopment of the site and as a result provide a provide some 11,160sqm (GEA) of commercial class replacement building that overcomes the existing B1 office space. The buildings, which comprise site constraints and which has the potential to a lower ground, ground plus 8 upper floors and a attract a major new commercial occupier to the site. roof level plant area were originally developed in the 1950s. They were substantially refurbished in 1985. It was at this point that the original building was subdivided into two separate buildings.

2.2.2 Pedestrian access into the buildings is from two points on Finsbury Square; one entrance into number 3 and another at number 10. The building footprint is set back from the ownership boundary to the front and rear. At the front, railings and a light well provide light to the lower ground floor and to the rear a vehicular service ramp from Finsbury Square leads down to an open area of car parking at lower ground floor. This car parking area provides parking for some 12 cars. Figure 2.3: Existing buildings - View from Finsbury Square

2.2.3 No.3 is the larger of the two buildings and was let to British Petroleum from 1985 until 2009. Over this 14 year period BP reduced its occupancy and sublet parts of the building. By 2009 there were only 25 employees left working in the entire building and it is now vacant.

2.2.4 No.10 is currently occupied by a number of small companies. All leases, however expire at the end of 2010 and it is confirmed that none of the existing tenants have asked to renew/extend their leases.

2.2.5 The buildings themselves have a number of significant operational shortcomings. The existing floor plates are narrow and inflexible. The floor to ceiling heights (2.45m in parts) no longer meet modern occupier requirements and the buildings’ sustainability credentials are extremely poor.

Figure 2.4: Existing buildings - View from HAC grounds

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 9 2.3 Recent planning history 2.4 Policy status of the site (including 3&10) that were considered to make no contribution to the Conservation Area. It was however later decided that they should 2.3.1 The statutory Planning Register held by London 2.4.1 The site is covered by a number of overlapping be included to give the Council control over Borough of Islington has the following planning planning policy designations at the regional, demolition. history for 3 & 10 Finsbury Square: strategic and local levels, as outlined below: ■■ The site is within the Bunhill and Clerkenwell ■■ October 1983: (830526) Redevelopment to ■■ The site is within the defined Central London Area Action Plan (AAP) area. An AAP is provide a nine storey office block of 10 500 sqm boundary, as detailed in the Town and Country currently being prepared as part of Islington’s gross floorspace, access road and 12 parking Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000. Local Development Framework (LDF). A public spaces – Approved. ■■ The site is within the boundary of the Central consultation exercise was held in June/July ■■ October 1984: (840755) Construction of new Activities Zone (CAZ) as identified in the London 2009 to get feedback on issues and options. It is front entrances – Approved. Plan. The CAZ is recognised as an area that is envisaged that a draft AAP will be produced late capable of strategic growth through a mix of land 2010. ■■ October 1984: (840756) Installation of new uses. windows to front and rear elevation and removal of parapet at rear on eighth floor level – ■■ The site is within the ‘North London Sub-region’ Approved. as identified in the London Plan, with priorities for accommodating new jobs and housing ■■ December 1984: (840757) Construction of opportunities and appropriate mixed-use replacement plant room on roof – Approved. development. ■■ May 1985: (841833) Construction of electrical ■■ The site is within the boundary of the Central switchroom at rear and replacement of portion of London Policy Area, identified in the LB Islington rear wall with railings – Approved. Adopted UDP 2002. This reflects the aspirations ■■ August 1985: (850734) Construction of generator of the Council to amongst other things room at rear adjoining electrical switchroom - encourage business growth and other suitable Approved. uses within central London, support measures to reduce the volume of traffic entering the city ■■ February 1995: (950018) Installation of additional and encourage additional residential dwellings. plant on roof – Approved. ■■ The City Fringe & Finsbury ‘Priority Area for ■■ February 2005: (P043233) Installation of one Regeneration’, as defined in the LB Islington additional condensing unit to the rear lower Adopted UDP 2002. Within this area the focus ground floor extension – Approved. is upon securing employment opportunities ■■ October 2007: (P072005) Installation of 2 for local residents, promoting the development new satellite dishes on the roof of property – of under-used buildings and improving the Approved. environment.

■■ November 2007: (P072006) Installation of 3 new ■■ The buildings are located within the Bunhill air conditioning condenser units on the roof of Fields and Finsbury Square Conservation property - Approved. Area (CA22) as identified in the LB Islington Adopted UDP 2002 and set out in more detail ■■ September 2010: (P100555 and P100680) in the Conservation Area Design Guidelines Redevelopment of the site to provide new office (January 2002). The original proposal for the building - Refused. designation of the Conservation Area was to exclude buildings around Finsbury Square

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement Figure 2.5: Extract from LB Islington UDP (2002) Proposal Map ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 10 2.5 Relevant planning policy 2.5.5 In addition to the above other government and 2.5.10 in addition to this the site lies within the North Strategy document has been prepared and sets national level guidance relevant to this application London sub-region of the London Plan. Policy 5B.1 out the overall vision and spatial strategy for the 2.5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory includes: sets out a list of strategic priorities for the sub-region Borough and includes a set of strategic objectives Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to which include: and core policies. Until this is adopted the saved ■■ Safer Places: The Planning System & Crime be determined in accordance with the Development policies of the UDP remain development plan policy. Prevention (2004); ■■ taking advantage of the sub-region’s exceptional Plan, unless material considerations indicate access to the CAZ to sustain high levels of 2.5.15 The adopted UDP sets out ten strategic priorities for otherwise. ■■ Planning & Access for Disabled People: A Good economic and population growth; and lslington, of relevance to this application includes; Practice Guide (2004); and 2.5.2 The Development Plan for the site is the Saved the provision of high quality developments, ensuring ■■ improving the quality of the environment with Policies from the London Borough of Islington’s ■■ CABE/DETR ‘By Design’ (2000). planning decisions reflect the need for sustainability, emphasis on sustainable forms of development, Unitary Development Plan, which was adopted in and encouraging sustainable economic movement and improving the public realm. 2002, along with the Spatial Development Plan for Regional Planning Policy growth. Greater London (The Consolidated London Plan, 2.5.11 For the purpose of this application the relevant 2.5.6 At a regional level the Consolidated London Plan 2.5.16 The application site is designated as follows within 2008). Both of these documents embrace policy London Plan supplementary guidance is: (February 2008) sets the relevant regional planning the UDP proposal map: guidance issued at the national level. policy guidance for Islington. ■■ London View Management Framework (2007); ■■ Bunhill Fields/Finsbury Square Conservation 2.5.3 The following documents have been taken into 2.5.7 The application is referable to the Mayor of London ■■ Sustainable Design and Construction (2006); Area; consideration in the review of the application under the terms of the Town & County Planning proposals: ■■ Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive ■■ Central London Area; (Mayor of London) Order 2000 (SI no.1493), as Environment (2004). ■■ National Planning Policy an application of ‘potential strategic importance’, Archaeological Priority Area. being a large-scale development and including the 2.5.12 Other relevant Mayoral Strategies and Documents 2.5.17 The relevant LBI supplementary planning guidance 2.5.4 The relevant national planning policy is set out in the erection of buildings of more than 30m in height include; includes: various Planning Policy Statements, Planning Policy outside the City of London. ■■ Mayor’s Energy Strategy (2004); Guidance Notes and Government Circulars: ■■ SPD – Planning Obligations (2009) 2.5.8 The Mayor recognises that London has very ■■ Shaping London - Mayor’s Draft Economic ■■ PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development distinctive strategic needs and as such the London ■■ SPG - Planning Standards Guidelines (2002) Development Strategy (2009); (2005) Plan is designed to facilitate London’s continued ■■ SPG – Revised Conservation Area Guidelines success as a World City. One of the most significant ■■ Mayor’s Draft Air Quality Strategy (2009); ■■ PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic (2002) challenges the Mayor faces is to accommodate Growth (2009) ■■ Ambient Noise Strategy (2004); significant growth in ways that respect and enhance ■■ SPG - Sustainability Assessments (2002) ■■ PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment London’s diverse heritage while delivering his vision ■■ Biodiversity Strategy (2002). ■■ SPG – Green Construction (2003) (2010) for an exemplary, sustainable world city. It will involve the sensitive intensification of development in Local Planning Policy ■■ SPG - Green Travel Plans (1999) ■■ PPS 9: Bio-diversity and Geological locations that are well served by public transport. Conservation (2003) 2.5.13 As noted the Development Plan for the site is ■■ SPG – Use of Groundwater (2002) 2.5.9 As noted in paragraph 2.4.1, the site is located the Saved Policies of the London Borough of ■■ PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste ■■ Draft Issues and Options Bunhill and Clerkenwell within the CAZ. The Mayor’s objectives for the CAZ Islington’s Unitary Development Plan, which was Management (2005) AAP (2009) are to ensure adequate capacity to sustain further adopted in 2002. This is supported by a number of ■■ PPG 13: Transport (2001) growth, to harness the opportunities that it offers for supplementary planning guidance notes. 2.5.18 Section 7 of this statement examines the revised Londoners and the rest of the Country to secure and proposals in detail against the policies and other ■■ PPG16: Archaeology and Planning (1990) 2.5.14 In response to the requirements of the new planning enhance its unique environment and attractiveness. material consideration relevant in the determination system the Council have prepared a first review of ■■ PPS 22: Renewable Energy (2004) Sustaining its role as the core location for of this Planning and Conservation Area Consent the Local Development Scheme, which sets out the international business and finance is considered application. ■■ PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) details of all planning policy documents, which the crucial. local authority proposes to produce. A draft Core ■■ PPG 24: Planning and Noise (1994)

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 11 3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 12 3 Townscape & heritage appraisal

Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 13 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Basis & method of appraisal management of the historic environment”, April 2008. 3.1.1 Given the site’s location within the Finsbury Square/ 3.2.1 The appraisal of the townscape and heritage 3.2.4 The appraisal that is set out therefore covers the Bunhill Fields Conservation Area and hence the attributes of the site in its context is intended to following recommended aspects of appraisal: policy requirement of any future development inform the design process to ensure that the design to ‘preserve or enhance’ the character and of the new building on 3 & 10 Finsbury Square ■■ Specific townscape and heritage policy context, appearance of the Conservation Area it is conforms with and positively contributes to the amplifying that set out in Section 2.5; essential that what constitutes and the factors that policy imperatives for: ■■ Historic development and archaeology, contribute to the character and appearance of the ■■ good design that is appropriate to its context; summarising the historic evolution of urban Conservation Area are understood from the outset. and change; 3.1.2 This section therefore provides a comprehensive ■■ preserving or enhancing the character and ■■ Townscape and spatial analysis, setting out assessment of the townscape and heritage context appearance of the conservation area within the urban form attributes, interrelationships of by: which it sits. spaces and enclosing buildings, and key views ■■ reviewing at the history and development of the and vistas; 3.2.2 The site location and extent on the western side of Site and wider Conservation Area; Finsbury Square has already been described. Its ■■ Character analysis, defining character areas ■■ providing a townscape analysis of the current context for the purposes of this appraisal has been or zones within the conservation area and its situation and assessments of the Site and broadly defined from three perspectives as: setting; Conservation Area’s special interest and ■■ the immediately adjacent townscape which has ■■ Audit of heritage assets, identifying listed heritage significance; and a direct visual relationship with the site and the buildings and registered historic parks or 3.1.3 Based on this assessment the section concludes existing and proposed building upon it (ie where gardens, unlisted buildings of recognisable by setting out the design opportunities for a the building will be visible from); heritage significance, unlisted buildings and replacement building. spaces that make a positive contribution ■■ the heritage context of the conservation area to the character and/or appearance of the within which the site and building sits; and conservation area, and buildings and features ■■ the broader townscape context that forms the that detract from the character and/or setting of the conservation area and immediate appearance of the conservation area; townscape, comprising the tall buildings in ■■ Summary of special interest and significance, background views from within Finsbury Square drawing the key elements from all the above that and adjoining streets. provide the special historic and architectural 3.2.3 The method and scope of appraisal is based on; interest creating the distinctiveness of place guidance on the attributes of good urban design set and character that merits preservation and/or out in By Design; on the recommended approach enhancement; and methodology set out in the English Heritage/ ■■ Problems, pressures and capacity for Planning Advisory Service publication “Guidance change, and specific generic opportunities for on Conservation Area Appraisals”, 2006; and on enhancement of the conservation area through PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment and the design of the new building. its accompanying Planning Practice Guide. Where specifically relevant we have also had regard to guidance and advice set out in English Heritage’s recent publication “Conservation Principles – Policies and guidance for the sustainable

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 14 ■■ Ease of Movement – A place that is easy to get to ■■ to contribute to our knowledge and 3.3 Specific townscape & heritage the substantial harm or loss is outweighed by and move through; understanding of our past by taking policy context substantial public benefits that can be delivered or opportunities to capture evidence from the ■■ Legibility – A place that has a clear image and is where a number of specific tests of the viability of historic environment and to make it publicly National Policy and Guidance – PPS1 easy to understand; maintaining the significance of the heritage asset available. cannot be met. 3.3.1 PPS1 sets out the Government’s objectives for ■■ Adaptability – A place that can change easily; 3.3.5 Policy HE6 of PPS5 sets out the information the planning system and its overarching national and 3.3.8 While the conservation area within which the requirements for consent affecting heritage assets. policies for delivering sustainable development application site sits is a designated heritage asset, ■■ Diversity – A place with variety and choice. The key requirement is for an applicant to provide and good design that is appropriate to its context. the building itself is not. PPS5 requires that account a description of the significance of the heritage Paragraph 33 states that: “Good design ensures should be taken of the relative significance of assets affected and the contribution of their setting attractive usable, durable and adaptable places the element affected and its contribution to the to that significance. The level of detail should be and is a key element in achieving sustainable National Policy and Guidance – PPS5 significance of the conservation area. It states: proportionate to the importance of the heritage development. Good design is indivisible from “Where and element does not positively contribute 3.3.3 PPS5, replaces PPG15 and PPG16 and sets out the asset and no more than is sufficient to understand good planning.” Paragraph 34 elaborates further to its significance, local planning authorities should Government’s objectives and policies for the historic the potential impact of the proposal on the stating: “Good design should contribute positively take into account the desirability of enhancing environment and the rationale for its conservation. significance of the heritage asset. to making better places for people. Design which or better revealing the significance of ….the A key feature of PPS5 is its holistic approach to is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to 3.3.6 Policy HE7 sets out principles guiding the Conservation Area as a whole, including…through the historic environment and the need to identify take the opportunities available for improving the determination of applications. Account should development of that element. This should be seen and assess the significance of any element of character and quality of an area and the way it be taken of the particular nature of the heritage as part of the process of place-shaping.” the historic environment that may be affected by functions, should not be accepted.” Paragraph 38 asset and the value it holds for this and future development. It focuses on heritage assets which it refers to the avoidance by local planning authorities generations, so that any conflict between the asset’s Adopted Development Plan - The London Plan, defines in paragraph 5 as“those parts of the historic of unnecessary prescription and detail in design conservation and any aspect of the proposal can February 2008 environment that have significance because of their policies, avoidance of imposition of particular styles be minimised (para HE7.2). The policy also points historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic 3.3.9 There are two general design policies and two or tastes and not stifling innovation, originality or out “the desirability of new development making interest”. heritage policies that are particularly relevant to initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to a positive contribution to the character and local this application. Policy 4B.1 Design principles conform to certain development forms or styles. 3.3.4 Paragraph 7 of PPS5 states that “The Government’s distinctiveness of the historic environment. The for a compact city, seeks to ensure that new overarching aim is that the historic environment consideration of design should include scale, height, development, inter alia: maximises the potential of National Policy and Guidance – By Design and its heritage assets should be conserved and massing, alignment, materials and use.” (para HE7.5) sites; promotes high quality inclusive design and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and 3.3.2 By Design, prepared by CABE for government, 3.3.7 Policy HE9 sets out principles for the consideration enhances the public realm; mitigates the effects future generations.” Its objectives , in summary, are: provides advice on achieving good urban design. of development proposals affecting designated of climate change; respects local context and PPS1 states that planning authorities should ■■ to deliver sustainable development, recognising heritage assets. Designated assets are defined heritage; is sustainable, durable and adaptable; is have regard to it (paragraph 37). It sets out 7 key not only the value of heritage assets and benefits in Annex 2 and include scheduled monuments, practical and legible; and is attractive to look at and objectives of urban design that development of their conservation, but also that intelligently listed buildings, registered parks or gardens and inspire, excite and delight. Policy 4B.2 Promoting proposals (in terms of their layout, landscape, managed change may be necessary if heritage conservation areas. There is a presumption in world-class architecture and design, encourages density and mix, height, massing, and detailed assets are to be maintained for the long term; favour of the conservation of designated heritage world-class high quality design and encourages appearance) should aspire to reinforce: assets and the more significant the designated contemporary and integrated designs for the built ■■ to conserve heritage assets in a manner heritage asset is, the greater the presumption in environment. ■■ Character – A place with its own identity; appropriate to their significance, with favour of its conservation (para HE9.1). Where development decisions being based on the 3.3.10 Policy 4B.11 is the Plan’s general heritage policy, ■■ Continuity and Enclosure – A place where public an application will lead to substantial harm to or nature, extent and level of that significance to a seeking to protect and enhance London’s historic and private spaces are clearly distinguishable; total loss of significance of the heritage asset, degree proportionate to the importance of the environment. Policy 4B.12 Heritage conservation, consent should generally be refused. Exceptions ■■ Quality of the Public Realm – A place with heritage asset; and exhorts Boroughs to ensure that the protection and apply where either it can be demonstrated that attractive and successful outdoor areas; enhancement of historic assets are based on an understanding of their special character, and form part of the wider urban improvement agenda.

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 15 Adopted Development Plan – Islington Unitary Supplementary Planning Guidance- Non-statutory Policy – Islington Conservation Development Plan, 2002 Islington Urban Design Guide 2006 Area Guidelines, 1996, Revised 2002 3.3.11 Pending the preparation and adoption of the 3.3.13 This design guide provides advice on appropriate 3.3.14 The site is within the Bunhill Fields/Finsbury Square borough’s new LDF, the saved policies in the now design responses to a variety of contexts with Conservation Area, one of 39 in the Borough. The dated 2002 Islington UDP remain the relevant references to examples of good and bad practice Conservation Area designation was first proposed ones for development control purposes. The ones within the Borough. The most relevant section is in 1986, at which time 1 to 10 Finsbury Square relevant to this appraisal are in Chapter 12, Design Section 2 which deals with contextual relationships. (including the application site) and 30 to 33 on and Conservation. Policy D1 is the overarching The advice reflects that set out in national policy the opposite side of the Square were excluded design policy, requiring the design and appearance and associated documents such as By Design. It because, in the opinion of officers, the buildings had of new development to be of a high standard, shows several positive examples where buildings no conservation interest, and other design controls appropriate to the overall streetscape, making the higher than neighbouring ones are appropriate. It were considered more appropriate. Following best use of the site, and respecting scale, form and shows an example of a building in City Road, which, recommendations from the Conservation Area character of its surroundings. Policy D4 requires while being considerably taller than its immediate Advisory Committee seeking greater control over new buildings to acknowledge the most important neighbour, is nevertheless in scale with the rest demolition and design in the face of development elements of the urban context and create a positive of the City Road surrounds. Finsbury Square pressures, the boundaries were adjusted to include relationship with surrounding buildings and spaces, itself features in several places (figure 3.1) with no all buildings around Finsbury Square, and the while encouraging architectural innovation and suggestion that strict adherence to existing built Conservation Area was formally designated in 1987. imaginative design solutions. Policy D18 seeks to forms, heights or fenestration patterns is desirable. Its boundaries were extended in 1998 and again protect views of well known local landmarks, and It shows modern buildings with high frontages in in 2002 resulting in an irregularly shaped area with Triton Court is identified as one of these. relation to the street width being consistent with circuitous boundaries and some outlier pockets with 3.3.12 There are three relevant Conservation Areapolicies. their central location (page 30). Contemporary conservation area protection (figure 3.2). Policy D21 has a presumption in favour of retaining fenestration patterns, with a very high void to 3.3.15 Although there is no Conservation Area assessment buildings that contribute positively to the character solid ratio are also shown as being appropriate in of the area, the Council has adopted a series or appearance of a conservation area. Policy Finsbury Square (pages 30 & 37). of Conservation Area Guidelines for its various D22 seeks to ensure that new development in conservation areas. The Conservation Area Design conservation areas is of a high standard and Guidelines document (CA 22) for this area contain normally requires new buildings to conform to the very specific requirements in relation to the detailed height, scale and massing of existing buildings and design and use of materials for any replacement spaces within the conservation area. Policy D24 building in Finsbury Square. Although the guidance normally requires the use of traditional materials is very prescriptive and not based on any written in conservation areas, and states that for new assessment of heritage or design significance, there buildings materials should be sympathetic to the is still an expectation that the guidelines will need to character of the area in terms of form, colour, texture be strictly adhered to as part of any redevelopment. and profile.

3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 16 Figure 3.1: Supplementary Planning Guidance - Islington Urban Design Guide 2006 - Pages 25, 30 and 37, featuring several positive examples of buildings in and around Finsbury Square

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 17 The following are the key points: 3.3.16 The Council has applied the ‘six plus two’ guidelines ■■ There is an expectation that any replacement in relation to the redevelopment of a number of buildings will be of a high standard of design and sites around the square i.e. at No 1-2, 27-30 and will respect and reinforce the grand City-type 50 Finsbury Square and at 8-13 Chiswell Street. buildings, which face the Square. Additional height (lower-ground, ground plus nine) ■■ The prevailing sheer height to parapet level of six has been allowed at 22-25 Finsbury Square where storeys plus basement should be maintained, this increase in height was considered appropriate but not exceeded. as the additional height would not be visible from Finsbury Square. Each of these new replacement ■■ Precise parapet heights might vary by a metre or less between buildings. buildings above has, however, been allowed to adopt a contemporary architectural solution ■■ Behind the parapet, two set-back storeys demonstrating that the guidelines have been may be acceptable, including plant, either as interpreted in a flexible manner, particularly above a vertical wall at least two metres back or a parapet level. mansard. ■■ Elevations facing Finsbury Square must be wholly in Portland Stone below parapet level. Above the parapet, vertical walls should be in Portland stone, and mansards in slate. ■■ The principal horizontal lines of the elevation e.g. cornices, bands, window heads and cills, should relate to similar features of adjoining buildings. ■■ Ground floor entrances should be grand but should avoid large areas of glass. ■■ Window openings should produce a balanced rhythm with no dominance of glass over stone. ■■ Strong horizontal and vertical emphasis should be avoided. ■■ Front areas giving light to basements should be protected by heavy metal railings on a stone base. ■■ Rear elevations facing Artillery Fields should be in brick and designed with care. ■■ Glass to windows and entrances should be clear, not coloured or tinted. ■■ Plant rooms must be included within the roof structure. ■■ Retention of Yorkstone paving areas is required.

Figure 3.2: Extent of Conservation Area 3 & 10 Finsbury Square Planning, Design & Access Statement ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 18 3.4 History of the site and its 3.4.3 An Act of 1716 set up the Islington turnpike trust. 3.4.6 As a new residential quarter, Finsbury Square context The trust, with the Marylebone turnpike trust, never became fashionable as it was regarded as also became responsible for the New Road being in a socially inferior location too far away from Early history of Finsbury Square (Marylebone, Euston, and Pentonville Roads) the West End, and as quoted by Boswell in 1783 built from Paddington to the Angel between 1756 in “so shocking a situation, between Bedlam and 3.4.1 Until well into the 15th century the Moorfields area and 1775. The continuation from the Angel to St Luke’s Hospital”. It enjoyed a relatively short- was an expanse of wasteland and poorly drained Finsbury Square, called City Road, was built in lived existence as the home of rich City merchants fen. Drainage ditches were dug in 1415 to create 1761, improving the previous route north from the until around 1870, when they moved out towards a causeway from the edge of the City of London City along Finsbury Pavement and Royal Row. This Highgate. Notable residents during this period to the farming villages of Islington and Hoxton. It provided the accessibility for larger scale, more included Samuel Williams the American consul, was used for hunting in the reign of Henry VIII, and formal development. several eminent doctors working at St Luke’s was popular for archery which subsequently led to Lunatic Asylum in Old street, George Birkbeck the creation of the Honourable Artillery (meaning Development of Finsbury Square founder of the Mechanics’ Institute, Anton Bruckner “archery”) Company. Agas’ map of 1560 shows an the composer, David Livingstone the explorer, Figure 3.3: North side looking east, 1817 isolated manor house, Finsbury Court, in the vicinity 3.4.4 An Act of 1768 enabled Dr Christopher Wilson, the and several prominent Jewish families and rabbis, of the south-west corner of what is now Finsbury Prebendary of Finsbury to grant the City of London including the Chief Rabbi, Nathan Adler. Between Square. Parts of the area became used as a place a 99 year lease (from 1770) on an area of over 6 1855 and 1882, number 10 Finsbury Square was of outdoor recreation for the City, and then a site acres to the east of the Artillery Ground on which to used as the Jew’s College, a theological seminary. for plague pits during the Great Plague. It was first lay out and develop residential streets. Plans for a populated, albeit informally, after the great Fire of new square and surrounding estate were prepared 3.4.7 The gardens at the centre of the square had a 1666 when a shanty town sprang up as homeless by the City Surveyor, George Dance, and his circular layout, and the area, though privately refugees left London. Many of the tented structures assistant James Peacock between 1773 and 1777. owned, was publicly accessible around its extensive were replaced by more permanent wooden and The development of the various ranges around the edges. The square was in its heyday used for some brick ones. square was completed in Phases between 1777 and popular demonstrations. In 1832, during a cholera 1791. The west terrace on the eastern front of the epidemic, the National Union of Working Classes 3.4.2 By the end of the 17th century, streets and lanes Artillery Ground was the first built, and it separated assembled in Finsbury Square to dispense bread were flanked by dwellings and defined major areas the hitherto visually connected open spaces on and meat to crowds of an estimated 25,000 to of open land and the remnants of fields. Upper and either side of the main road by buildings. The 100,000 of the poor. In 1848, Finsbury Square was Lower Moorfields were originally laid out as pleasure remaining sides of the new Finsbury Square were one of the assembly points for a mass Chartist rally Figure 3.4: View of North side and central space, 1910 grounds in 1625. The Artillery Ground opposite completed and let by 1792. which fizzled out through poor attendance. Upper Moorfields was occupied by the Honourable Artillery Company in 1641. In the 18th century the 3.4.5 The terraces of houses were 4 storeys with open space at Moorfields was used for preaching, attic rooms above and were marketed as large and it and other open areas were also used for residences for merchants. The ground floors were of activities like carpet-beating, fairground games, Portland stone or rusticated stucco with brickwork dog-fighting and other sports. By 1736 houses and on the upper floors. The architectural styles varied other buildings flanked either side of Chiswell Street on the different sides of the square. Some shops and a burial ground had been established at Bunhill occupied the ground floors of the some of the Fields to the north of the Artillery Ground. buildings on the south side of the square. The most distinctive was James Lackington’s bookshop, at 50 Finsbury Square, known as the Temple of the Muses. This became one of London’s best known and largest bookshops with a 50,000 volume collection filling the whole building. It burnt down in 1841. Figure 3.5: View north-east across square, 1946

©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2010 Planning, Design and Access Statement 3 & 10 Finsbury Square 19 Ordnance Survey® Historical Mapping Extract

www.centremapslive.com

Site Details:

Client Ref: 9744 Report Ref: CMAPS-CM-33204-9744-140809 The decline of Finsbury Square Grid Ref: 532798, 181979 3.4.8 Towards the end of the 19th century the character Map Name: County Series of the Square as a residential quarter for wealthy merchants began to change dramatically. Vacated Map date: 1916 houses were re-occupied by wide range of non- Scale: residential commercial uses in multiple occupation. 1:2,500

Parts of the Square were demolished and Printed at: 1:2,500 redeveloped for commercial uses, notably offices (eg Royal London House, the site of Triton House on the north-west corner, the London Friendly Society at number 18) and a hotel (Bueckers Hotel on the site of number 26). These were extravagant structures featuring elements quite different from the original terraced residences and from each other. Royal London House had a baroque style tower. City Gate House was built on the south side of the Square in 1924 (expand description). In 1929- 1930 the Bankers Megalo extension development spread over the top of four adjacent original houses and featured a 220 foot high tower and glazed brick surface. By the end of the second world war there were few of the original buildings left and soon after there were none.

3.4.9 All have been replaced by steel framed blocks, covering multiple sites, and several have been rebuilt more than once. Apart from the defining presence of the adjacent open spaces of the Honourable Artillery Company’s grounds and the form of the heart of Finsbury Square, there is virtually nothing left of its built heritage. Even the early commercial Figure 3.6: This map shows the area in 1705. The site of Finsbury Figure 3.7: This map shows the area in 1792. Finsbury Square had Figure 3.8: This map shows the area in 1916. Development on all sides Square was open fields known as Moorfields, the Artillery Grounds been developed as a formal square with development on all sides. The of the Finsbury Square remains. Commercial buildings such as Banks Generated from GroundSure Ltd’s extravaganzas have been redeveloped. Of the existed at this time, there was some development on the east and north surrounding buildings appear residential in scale and the central area have appeared. The central space remains oval and a tramway has high resolution historical mapping latter only City Gate House and Triton Court remain. archive. www.groundsure.com side of the Square, but 3&10 Finsbury Square was undeveloped. was oval. The Site had been developed by this date separating the been constructed along City Road. Triton Court was restored in 1984 to designs Artillery Grounds from Finsbury Square. by Sheppard Robson & Partners with a totally Supplied by: www.centremapslive.com reconstructed interior, with an atrium topped by [email protected] a glass dome below a heightened mansard. The asymmetrical façade has two vast entrances and a Crown copyright all rights reserved. Licence No: 10001511162 large recessed arch below its feature Mercury statue Production date: topped, baroque style tower. It is not a statutorily 14 August 2009 listed building, but it is on Islington’s local list and is identified as the only locally significant landmark in the Islington UDP.