130-154A Pentonville Road

planning report D&P/2924b/02 1 December 2014 130-154a Pentonville Road

in the London Borough of Islington planning application no. P2014/1017/FUL

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

The proposal Mixed-use redevelopment ranging in height from 4 to 10-storeys comprising 3,879 sq.m. commercial floorspace for a car hire company, 873 sq.m. of office floorspace and 118 residential units.

The applicant The applicant is Groveworld Rodney Street Ltd, and the architect is Pollard Thomas Edwards.

Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to affordable housing, residential density, energy and transport have been resolved satisfactorily.

The Council’s decision In this instance Islington Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Islington 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 May 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Islington 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 more than 30 metres high and is outside of the City of London.” 2 On 17 June 2014 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/2924b/01, and subsequently advised Islington Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the 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

page 1 as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns, as detailed below. On 11 November 2014 Islington Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 18 November 2014 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 Islington Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Islington Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 1 December 2014 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 The application was originally presented to Islington’s planning committee on 22 July 2014 where it was refused against the officer recommendation. The grounds for refusal were based on the scheme failing to intensify the level of on-site employment uses alongside issues with regards to the financial viability assessment. Council officers brought the application back to Islington’s planning committee on 11 November 2014 for further consideration as a concern was raised that the reasons for refusal were not matters pursued by the Council in reaching its decision on a previous application (reference PDU/2924a) for the same site, which was broadly similar in scope to the current application. The decision from the previous application subsequently went to appeal and the appeal was dismissed. 6 The officer’s committee report of 22 July 2014 did not make it sufficiently clear that the proposed employment offer had not changed in any material way between the current application and the appeal application. In addition, there has been no change in material circumstances or the policy situation which would lead committee members to take a contrary view on what is broadly a similar scheme. The appeal decision is recognised as a material consideration in the determination of the current application as although it found that the scheme would impact negatively on the amenity of neighbouring properties, it did provide clear agreement to other issues including affordable housing/viability and the employment offer. 7 At the consultation stage Islington Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies:

 Affordable housing: The applicant is proposing to provide eleven family sized units for social rent, however details on the funding of social rented units have not been provided. The applicant has not assessed whether the proposal could provide more affordable units using the affordable rent product. As such is it not possible to ascertain whether the proposal complies with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan.

 Density: In order to confirm whether the proposed density complies with policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan, clarification of the density is required.

 Urban design: The applicant has responded to concerns raised in relation to the previous iteration of the scheme, providing additional access points to residential cores. Issues raised in the inspector’s report in relation to overshadowing to Hill House have been successfully addressed through the massing reconfiguration of block E. This is welcomed.

 Energy: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required to ensure full compliance with the London Plan. The proposal includes living roofs, sustainable urban drainage and a

page 2 rainwater harvesting system. As such the proposal complies with the climate change adaptation policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan.

 Transport: Further information is required as detailed in paragraphs 52 to 59 above to ensure the proposal complies with transport policies contained within chapter 3 of the London Plan.

8 In response to Stage One comments and further consultation with Council officers, further information has been provided as detailed below:

Affordable housing 9 At the consultation stage, the applicant was advised to revisit the proposed tenure split of affordable housing provision and explore means of replacing the social rent offer with affordable rent to ascertain whether this would provide an improved affordable housing offer. In response, the applicant commissioned Gerald Eve to remodel the financial viability assessment based on affordable rent units, with rent set at 50% of market rent level. It was found that while this led to a degree of additional value, this was not deemed sufficient to enable additional affordable housing units to be provided. The amount of affordable provision therefore remains the same as commented on at the consultation stage and GLA officers recognise this as being the maximum reasonable amount, meeting the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.12. 10 As required in the Council’s SPD on planning obligations, a further financial viability appraisal should be submitted prior to the date of implementation of the development. It is understood that a clause has been included in the draft Section 106 agreement to secure this requirement. Density 11 The applicant has provided a revised calculation, taking into account the employment of floorspace, as requested at the consultation stage. This results in a net residential density of 1,004 habitable rooms per hectare, or 380 units per hectare. This sits within the prescribed range as defined in London Plan Table 3.3 for a development site in this highly accessible location and is supported from a strategic perspective. 12 As detailed at the initial consultation stage, the form and massing of the scheme has been amended to address concerns raised in the Inspector’s report in relation to the previous application. The amendments are supported from a strategic perspective and the proposals demonstrate a high quality of both detailed and contextual/townscape design, with key details conditioned by the Council. The scheme is therefore recognised as meeting the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’. Sustainable development/energy 13 At the initial consultation stage the applicant was requested to submit sample DER and TER sheets with full BRUKL sheets to support the projected reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. While it is disappointing this information has not been provided, it does not pose a significant strategic issue. 14 The applicant was advised to prioritise connection to the Euston Road district heating network, alongside providing evidence of correspondence with the network developer. This information has not been included in the application, however it is accepted that the district heating network is likely to be located too great a distance from the application site (820metres) and is of too small a scale to make an immediate connection feasible. It is also noted that a condition has been included requiring the development to be future proofed for connection. The Council is requested to include further detail in the wording of this condition (condition 20) to prioritise connection to existing networks before installing on-site combined heat and power (CHP). Notwithstanding this, the requirement to consider the use of temporary plant for an

page 3 initial period until connection to a district heating network can be achieved, is addressed in the same condition. 15 As detailed in the Stage One report, the applicant proposed to install a site heat network and confirmation was needed to ensure that all apartments and non-domestic uses would be connected to the network. This requirement has been addressed by the inclusion of an appropriately worded condition, which is welcomed. 16 At the initial consultation stage, the applicant was advised that the on-site carbon dioxide savings would fall short of the London Plan targets in Policy 5.2 and while it was accepted that there is little further potential for carbon reductions on-site, the applicant was advised to liaise with the Council to ensure the short fall (equivalent to twelve tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum), is met off-site. Condition 21 under recommendation B of the draft decision notice quantifies the cash in lieu contribution required to achieve this. Transport for London’s Comments 17 At initial consultation stage, TfL welcomed that the residential element of the scheme would be car free given the highly accessible location. The proposal does however include 150 spaces for the car hire business and TfL is supportive of the condition that limits their use for operational use only. Other measures to support the car free use in the Section 106 agreement are also welcomed, including the restriction of access to on-street parking permits and an on-street car club space. 18 The submitted pedestrian environment review system (PERS) audit identified the need for de-cluttering in order to provide additional footway capacity. Such improvements will be funded through the Council’s community infrastructure levy. As Pentonville Road is part of the TLRN, TfL welcomes the obligation that the applicant will repair and reinstate the footway through a Section 278 agreement. 19 Other matters that will be secured through Section 106 obligation or planning condition as appropriate include the protection of TfL’s street trees, a minimum of five visitor cycle spaces on street, residential travel plan and a construction logistics plan. TfL therefore considers that the proposals comply with the strategic transport policies in London Plan. Response to consultation 20 Prior to the initial planning committee on 22 July 2014, in addition to press and site notices, a public consultation was undertaken which included statutory bodies and local residents, with a total of 403 individual letters of notification sent to neighbouring properties. The public consultation expired on 17 April 2014. 21 24 responses were received from local residents, all objecting to the proposal. Issued raised can be summarised as follows:  Affordable housing - The scheme puts forward an inadequate level of affordable housing provision.  Bulk and massing – The height, scale and proximity of development would be overbearing on surrounding dwellings; a seven storey approval was previously granted on the Rodney Street/Pentonville Road corner and the proposed ten storeys is significantly taller; the design appears as one large block and is too large in scale and volume; the scheme would impact negatively on the skyline of King’s Cross.  Impact on local residential amenity – The scale of development would negatively impact on sunlight/daylight levels to the neighbouring Hill House apartments; the scheme would result in overlooking issues to neighbouring units and would prevent the use and enjoyment of existing balconies; the proposed five storey element fronting onto Hill House would create echoing and noise issues; construction workers would have views into Hill House apartments and impact on privacy levels; there would be a loss of west facing views; the proposals will devalue Hill House units.

page 4  Parking and transport – Concerns were raised in relation to the future use of the 150 parking spaces linked to the car hire unit, if the occupant was to cease trading on the site.  Local amenity – The development would result in a loss of trees; the scheme would have a negative impact on Joseph Grimaldi Park; the scheme would adversely impact on the setting of a listed building. Statutory consultees 22 The responses received following the consultation exercise carried out are summarised as follows: 23 English Heritage: Raised no objection and stated that the scheme should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice. 24 English Heritage (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service): Recommended that no archaeological requirement was necessary. They concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on heritage assets of archaeological interest. No further assessment or conditions are necessary. 25 Metropolitan Police (crime prevention): Advises that as there are more than ten flats served from each residential communal door, it is recommended that there is an additional access control on each floor. It is recommended that the Secured by Design physical security standards are applied to the development. 26 Thames Water: Stated that the impact on surrounding infrastructure depends on which side of the development the new connection is made. Cynthia Street is capable of supporting the new demand but Rodney Street is not. Thames Water preferred option would be for all surface water to be disposed of on-site using SUDS, in line with London Plan Policy 5.13. The following conditions and informatives were also requested: - A non-return valve to avoid risk of backflow at a later date should be installed; - Petrol/oil interceptors are to be fitted to all car parking/washing/repair facilities; - No impact piling should take place until a piling method statement has been submitted and approved; - A water pressure informative should be included; - The developer should be responsible for making provision for drainage to ground, water course or a suitable sewer. 27 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority: Raised no objections. 28 Crossrail Safeguarding (Chelsea/Hackney line): Requested that should the Council be minded to grant permission, a condition should be included that secures detailed design and construction method statements for all basements, ground floors and foundations, in consultation with Crossrail. This should include an assessment on the effects of noise and vibration from the Crossrail tunnels on the development. 29 The issues raised above have been addressed in this report, the Stage One report and the Council’s Committee report and through conditions imposed in the draft decision notice.

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority 30 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 One, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.

page 5 Legal considerations 31 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 and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations 32 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. 33 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 and this unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. 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. 34 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 35 Outstanding issues in relation to affordable housing, residential density, energy and transport have been resolved satisfactorily. The proposed development is supported in terms of good strategic planning in Greater London.

For further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Colin Wilson, Senior Manager (Development & Projects) 020 7983 4783 email: [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development & Projects) 020 7983 4895 email: [email protected] James Keogh, Case Officer 020 7983 4317 email: [email protected]

page 6

planning report PDU/2924b/01 17 June 2014 130 - 154a Pentonville Road in the London Borough of Islington planning application no. P2014/1017/FUL

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

The applicant The applicant is Groveworld Rodney Street Ltd and the architect is Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects.

Strategic issues The principle of mixed-use development is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. While some of the issues raised in relation to the previous version of this application have now been addressed, further information is required on affordable housing, density, energy and transport to ensure compliance with London Plan policies.

Recommendation That Islington Council be advised that the application does not currently comply with the London Plan, with the reasons and remedies set out in paragraph 67 of this report.

page 7 Context

1 On 7 May 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Islington 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 17 June 2014 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

3 ” Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside of the City of London”.

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

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

6 The application site is 0.34 hectares (ha) in size and contains a range of uses, including residential, a car hire facility, offices, and a vacant site. It has three street frontages: onto Pentonville Road (south), Rodney Street (east) and Cynthia Street (west) and is bounded by industrial and residential to the north, mixed use development to the east, with Joseph Grimaldi Park to the west.

7 The A501 Pentonville Road which is part of the Transport for London road network. Currently, the primary vehicular access to the site is from Pentonville Road with a secondary access from Rodney Road, which is a borough road.

8 The nearest station is Angel, which is located 550 metres to the east of the site and provides access to Northern Line underground services. The site is also located within 700 metres of Kings Cross, which is one of London’s main rail termini. In addition to providing access to national and suburban rail services, Kings Cross Underground Station is served by the Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria, Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle lines respectively The closest bus stops to the site are located on Pentonville Road they serve five routes; 30, 73, 205, 214 and 476. The nearest cycle hire docking station is located on the western boundary of the site in Rodney Street and provides space for 29 bicycles. As such the site records an excellent public transport accessibility level of 6b (in a range of 1 to 6 where 6 is excellent).

Details of the proposal

9 Permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development ranging in height from 4 to 10-storeys with a raised podium courtyard garden. The proposed development would contain 3,879 sq.m. of commercial floorspace on basement and ground floor levels for a car hire company, 873 sq.m. of office floorspace on the ground floor and 118 residential units above.

page 8 Case history

10 On 20 March 2012 a pre application meeting was held between the applicant and GLA officers to discuss the redevelopment of the site to provide new premises for the car hire company and residential units above. At this meeting and in the subsequent advice note PDU/2924/02 the applicant was advised that whilst the principle of the redevelopment of the site is acceptable, the issues raised in relation to design, inclusive access, housing, playspace, climate change and transport need to be addressed before an application is submitted.

11 Following the GLA’s pre-application response, the applicant submitted a planning application in July 2012 and the Stage one submission was received by the GLA on 3 September 2012 and subsequently presented to the Mayor on 26 September 2012. The report concluded that while the application broadly complied with some of the related policies, more work was required to address outstanding issues. Some of these issues have been addressed within the current application but further information is required with regards to energy and transport, as detailed in the relevant sections of this report.

12 Following the submission of the previous application, the applicant subsequently appealed against non-determination by Islington Council within the prescribed period. This was later dismissed by the Planning Inspector on 15 January 2014 for reasons based on the effect the development would have had on the living conditions of residents of surrounding properties in relation to daylight and sunlight and the visual effect on the character and appearance of the area. The latest application has sought to rectify these issues, as described in more detail in the ‘Urban design’ section below. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

13 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Principle of development London Plan  Housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; Housing SPG; Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy  Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context, draft SPG; Housing SPG; London Housing Design Guide; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG  Inclusive design London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG;  Sustainable development London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy

14 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 Islington Council Core Strategy 2011, the Islington Council Unitary Development Plan 2002 and the London Plan (with 2013 alterations).

15 The following are also relevant material considerations:  The National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework

page 9  The Site Allocations and Development Control Policies Development Plan submission documents  The Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014).

Principle of development

16 Mixed use developments are supported in this location. London Plan policy 3.3 seeks provision of at least an annual average of 33,400 additional homes across London up to 2015/16. Table 3.1 sets annual average housing provision monitoring targets for London boroughs, of which Islington’s is 1,170 additional homes per year between 2011 and 2021. The proposed development represents 10% of Islington’s annual housing target, and is welcomed. The principle of a mixed-use redevelopment of the site is therefore supported in strategic planning terms. Housing

Affordable housing

17 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. With regard to tenure split the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

18 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.

19 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodology is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Paragraph 3.75 highlights the potential need for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation.

20 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3.11, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination.

21 A breakdown of the units is shown below.

Private Intermediate Social Rent Total % Studio 15 - - 15 13% 1-bed 29 6 - 31 26% 2-bed 52 3 - 55 47% 3-bed 2 - 11 13 11% Total 98 9 11 118 % 83% 8% 9% 100% 17%

page 10

22 The applicant is proposing to provide 20 affordable units, equivalent to 16% of the total number of units and 22% of the total number of habitable rooms. The affordable housing is divided in 9 intermediate units (29% of affordable habitable rooms) and 11 social rented units (71% of affordable habitable rooms). The applicant has also submitted a viability assessment to support this offer. Islington Council has instructed an independent review of this viability assessment. The preliminary findings of which state that further information is required to ensure a full assessment of the scheme. The final independent report should be submitted before the application is referred back to the Mayor.

23 GLA officers are concerned over the intention to provide social rented units rather than affordable rented units in this scheme. Whilst social rented housing is retained in the NPPF definition of affordable housing both national guidance and within the London Plan make it clear that affordable rent and social rent are intended to meet the same housing needs. Unlike affordable rented units there is no funding for social rented units; as such it is likely that the proposal would be capable of providing more affordable housing units using the affordable rent model than the social rented model. London Plan policy seeks the maximisation of affordable housing, and on the basis that the scheme is resulting in the provision of less affordable units through use the social rented model, runs contrary to policy 3.11 of the London Plan. The applicant should revise the viability assessment to assess the number of affordable units the scheme would be able to provide using affordable rent instead of social rent as a product, and discuss these findings with GLA officers in due course.

Residential density

24 London Plan policy 3.4 requires development to optimise housing output for different locations taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity. Table 3.2 provides density guidelines in support of this. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 6B, on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is most accessible. The site is centrally located, with a high PTAL, and as such, a higher density of between 650 and 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare could be appropriate on this site.

25 The applicant previously suggested that the density of the previous scheme was in the vicinity of 948 habitable rooms per hectare, although no details were provided as to how this had been calculated. As described in the GLA’s Stage One report for the previous application, in a mixed-use scheme such as this with the allocation and layout of uses that is proposed, a straight calculation of dwellings per hectare or habitable rooms per hectare (based on the overall site area), is not an appropriate measure of density. The applicant has since responded to the guidance as detailed within the Mayor’s Housing SPG and provided a net dwelling density calculation (i.e. residential floor space as a proportion of overall floor space). This gave a density of 1065 hr/ha for the previous version of the scheme, which remains within the density range for a site with a high PTAL rating as detailed in Table 3.2 of the London Plan. While the revised density is likely to be marginally lower than that of the previous iteration of the scheme, the applicant is requested to confirm this before referring the scheme back to the Mayor.

26 Notwithstanding the results of the above analysis, it is acknowledged that the transport accessibility, central location and the built context could support a high-density development on the site, compatible with the design principles of policy 3.4 however, in order for a high density to be acceptable, the application would need to be exemplary in all other respects and provide a high quality living environment (including adequate provision of amenity space, an appropriate level of affordable housing, a good mix of unit sizes, high quality design and resolution of all transport and energy related issues), which are discussed elsewhere in this report.

Residential quality

27 The GLA raised concerns within the Stage One report relating to the previous application in relation to access arrangements to residential cores. It was noted that access points were mainly located

page 11 off the courtyard and opportunities for providing access from the public realm had not been explored sufficiently. In response to this a second point of access from Rodney Street has been included in the latest scheme and the centrally located entrance core to block C has been extended to provide stepped/lift access from Pentonville Road. This will positively contribute to levels of activity along the edges of the scheme facing the public realm which is welcomed.

28 Other aspects of the residential quality remain high and in line with guidance set out in the Mayor’s Housing SPG. Each residential core serves a very limited number of units per floor which minimises maintenance and security issues relating to the communal spaces and ensures that households feel a strong sense of ownership over their individual amenity spaces which is welcomed.

29 The number of single aspect units in the scheme has been successfully minimised and there are no north facing single aspect units. This ensures the maximum levels of daylight and natural ventilation to all units and improves their levels of adaptability which is welcomed.

Children’s play space

30 Policy 3.6 of the London Plan sets out that “development proposals that include housing should make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology within the Mayor’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 30 children within the development. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child playspace to be provided per child, with under- 5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the development should make provision for 300 sq.m. of playspace.

31 This development provides 147 sq.m. of child play space to meet the needs of the estimated under five population. This is welcomed. The development will also provide a tilted turf plane of 139 sq.m. for general amenity use which could be used for informal play but is not designated child play space. As such children aged 5 and over are expected to use the existing facilities located within 400 and 800 metres of the site. The applicant has provided a plan detailing the existing sports grounds, children’s playgrounds, adventure playgrounds and city farm. A detailed plan and information on the upgraded facilities of Grimaldi Park (adjacent to the site) has also been provided.

32 Islington Council should ensure it is satisfied the surrounding parks have capacity to accommodate the additional children from this development. It may be necessary for the applicant to fund improvements and/or access routes to these facilities. Urban design

33 As described earlier, the inspector dismissed the appeal for the previous application on the grounds that the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, specifically within Hill House (128 Pentonville Road) in respect of daylight and sunlight. It is noted that the inspector found all other aspects of the proposals to be acceptable. In response to the inspector’s findings, the latest scheme has been subject to further design work, focusing on reworking the massing configuration of blocks D and E, at the corner of Pentonville Road/Cynthia Street. This is described in more detail in the ‘form and massing’ section below.

34 As detailed in the GLA’s Stage One report relating to the previous application, the overall layout and spatial response to the site is supported with the inclusion of well-defined building lines, a good level of active frontages to principal elevations along Pentonville Road and Cynthia Street and secure access routes to the communal courtyard area at the rear of the blocks.

page 12 35 As described earlier, the inspector dismissed the appeal for the previous application on the grounds that the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, specifically within Hill House. In response to this, the principal design alterations have included reducing the height to four storeys along the length of the Cynthia Street frontage (a reduction in height of 5775mm), with a further single storey setback; and pulling back the building line by 1830mm along Cynthia Street, away from Hill House. The four storey frontage of block E has now been extended further towards Pentonville Road in order to form a more sympathetic response to the scale and proximity of Hill House and introduce a more human scaled form of development along Cynthia Street, which is welcomed.

36 The corner of block D has been reconfigured to provide a full-height re-entrant angle which both increases the area of public realm at ground level and allows improved levels of sunlight light to penetrate through to the west elevation of Hill House, which is welcomed. It also defines the entrance point to the corner commercial unit while providing a visual break between the principal frontage along Pentonville Road and the more residential scaled façade along Cynthia Street, which is supported.

37 The scheme varies from six to ten storeys in height. This is generally in keeping with the height of surrounding development and is supported. The taller element is located on the south-west corner highlighting the junction of Pentonville Road with Penton Rise and marking the open space of Joseph Grimaldi Park contributing the wider legibility of the area which is welcomed.

38 The scheme proposes use of brick frames, stone work, glass curtain walling, with some metal cladding and glass balconies. The development’s subdued aesthetic and use of brick as the main material creates a familiar and friendly appearance appropriate for a housing development, which is welcomed. Inclusive access

39 Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset, help to ensure that all individuals, including older people, people with disabilities, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum as required by building regulations.

40 The proposal has been designed to meet the 16 Criteria of the Lifetime Homes standards. 8% of units and 10% of habitable rooms have been designed to be accessible or adaptable to be wheelchair accessible units. The two wheelchair accessible units are provided as social rented units and the wheelchair adaptable units are provided as private units. The applicant has provided drawings illustrating how the units will be easily adaptable by occupants if needed. The provision of these units and the inclusive design principles outlined in section 4.3 of the applicant’s design and access statement should be secured by condition to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 7.2. Energy

41 The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy and sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. Further revisions are required before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified.

42 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 include mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and low energy lighting. The demand for cooling will be minimised through fixed external shading, solar control glazing and thermal mass.

page 13 43 The development is estimated to achieve a reduction of 17 tonnes per annum (9%) in regulated CO2 emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development. Sample DER and TER sheets and full BRUKL sheets for the efficiency only case should be provided to support the saving claimed.

44 The applicant has identified the Euston Road district heating network proposals within the vicinity of the development but states that it is too far from the site (820m) to allow immediate connection. Connection to existing or proposed networks should continue to be prioritised and evidence of correspondence with the Euston Road network developer should be provided including information on timescales for possible connection. The applicant should also discuss with Islington any opportunity to connect immediately or in the future to the Bunhill district heating network to the east of the site. Evidence of this communication should be provided to demonstrate that opportunities for connection have been suitably investigated.

45 The applicant has provided a commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available. The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network. However, the applicant should confirm that all apartments and non- domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network.

46 The site heat network will be supplied from a single energy centre. This will be located at basement level, near the boundary of the site to facilitate future connection to district heating. A plan of the energy centre has been provided.

Combined heat and power

47 The applicant is proposing to install a 22 kW, 51kWth gas fired CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 37 tonnes per annum (21%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

48 The applicant has stated that the intention is to use all the electricity generated by the CHP on site, for landlord and communal uses. Installation of on-site CHP should be considered only after opportunities for connection have been fully investigated. If necessary, the applicant should consider the use of temporary plant for the first few years until connection to a district heating network can be delivered.

Renewable energy technologies

49 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 27kWp of solar PV on the roof of the building. A roof plan showing the proposed installation has been provided. A reduction in regulated CO2 emissions of 12 tonnes per annum (9%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

Overall carbon savings

50 Based on the energy assessment submitted with the application, the table below shows the residual CO2 emissions after each stage of the energy hierarchy and the CO2 emission reductions at each stage of the energy hierarchy.

page 14

Table: CO2 emission reductions from application of the energy hierarchy

Total residual Regulated CO2 emissions regulated CO2 reductions emissions (tonnes per annum) (tonnes per annum) (per cent) Baseline i.e. 2010 Building Regulations 195.08 Energy Efficiency 178.43 17 9% CHP 141.06 37 21% Renewable energy 128.81 12 9% Total 66 34%

51 A reduction of 66 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 34%. The on-site carbon dioxide savings fall short of the targets within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan. While it is accepted that there is little further potential for carbon dioxide reductions onsite, in liaison with the borough the developer should ensure the short fall in carbon dioxide reductions, equivalent to 12 tonnes of CO2 per annum, is met off-site. Transport

52 TfL welcomes the residential and commercial elements of the scheme being car free, as the site is highly accessible and this meets the requirements of London Plan policy 6.13. The applicant should nevertheless work with Islington Council to provide at least one on-street accessible parking bay, designated for Blue Badge holders. The scheme also includes 150 spaces for the replacement car hire facility. Islington Council should limit their use for operational needs only by condition to prevent use by residents and other businesses. Other measures to support the car free use are also welcomed including the restriction of access to on-street parking permits as well as a contribution to Islington Council towards on-street car club spaces. All of these measures should be secured and enforced through the section 106 agreement.

53 TfL considers that the trip generation assessment is satisfactory and as such, agrees that the impact of the development on the public transport and the highway network will be limited. In particular, TfL acknowledges that any increase in vehicular trips from the car hire facility will be likely to occur outside the peak period.

54 As the development is car free, TfL expects that there will be a high proportion of pedestrian trips both within the local area and in connection with public transport use. The applicant has undertaken a Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) audit which concludes that whilst the surrounding environment is generally good, nearby sections of Pentonville Road would benefit from decluttering in order to provide additional footway capacity. TfL therefore requests a contribution in order to mitigate the impact of additional pedestrian trips in accordance with London Plan policy 6.10 and welcomes further discussion about this matter.

55 There are five street trees adjacent to the site on Pentonville Road, four of them are mature. TfL therefore welcomes the stepping back of the proposed building line to ensure that that they are not

page 15 compromised. TfL also welcomes the submission of a tree protection plan that should be secured and enforced by Islington Council through conditions.

56 TfL welcomes the provision of residential and commercial cycle parking spaces in accordance with London Plan policy 6.9. With the recent appeal proposals, the applicant advised that they would fund the installation of five visitor cycle spaces on Pentonville Road. TfL welcomes the principle of this but suggests that any stands should be installed on Rodney Road, close to the proposed building entrances.

57 In order to manage travel demand and to accord with London Plan policy 6.3, TfL welcomes the submission of a residential travel plan. It has been reviewed in accordance with TfL’s ATTrBuTE assessment tool and is considered satisfactory. The travel plan should be secured and monitored through the section 106 agreement.

58 In order to minimise the impact of construction traffic on the nearby section of the TLRN and to accord with London Plan policy 6.14, TfL welcomes that the development will be supported by a construction logistics plan. The plan should be secured and enforced by Islington Council through conditions.

59 The developer will be required to enter into a section 278 agreement with TfL as the highway authority for the proposed footway reinstatement works on the TLRN. This should be secured through the section 106 process. Community Infrastructure Levy

60 The Mayor has introduced a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help implement the London Plan, particularly policies 6.5 and 8.3. The Mayoral CIL formally came into effect on 1 April 2012, and it will be paid on commencement of most new development in Greater London funding of Crossrail

61 The Mayor has arranged boroughs into three charging bands. The rate for is £50/sq.m. The required CIL should be confirmed by the applicant and council once the components of the development or phase thereof have themselves been finalised. See the 2010 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111492390/contents as amended by the 2011 regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/987/made

62 London borough councils are also able to introduce CIL charges which are payable in addition to the Mayor’s CIL. Islington Council has yet to adopt a scheme. Crossrail

63 Policy 6.4 and 6.5 seek to improve the public transport system in London and increase public transport capacity by developing the Chelsea-Hackney line (Crossrail 2) later in the plan period. The site is within the statutory safeguarded area for Crossrail 2. Crossrail will provide a separate response on this matter direct to Islington Council, together with details of any standard conditions that they wish to include. Local planning authority’s position

64 The application is expected to go to Islington Council’s planning committee on 8 July 2014.

page 16 Legal considerations

65 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at 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

66 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

67 London Plan policies on principle of development, housing, urban design, inclusive design, energy and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Principle of development: The provision of a mixed-use development is supported by London Plan policies 3.3, 3.4 and 4.3 of the London Plan.

 Density: In order to confirm whether the proposed density complies with policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan, clarification of the density is required.

 Residential quality: The application achieves a high residential quality across the scheme, exceeding the Mayors’ space standards and successfully meeting the requirements within the Mayor’s Housing SPG.

 Children’s play space: The proposal provides sufficient play space to comply with London Plan policy 3.6.

 Inclusive access: In general the proposal has a high standard of accessibility. As such the proposal complies with policy 7.2 of the London Plan.

 Energy: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly

page 17 acceptable; however, further information is required to ensure full compliance with the London Plan. The proposal includes living roofs, sustainable urban drainage and a rainwater harvesting system. As such the proposal complies with the climate change adaptation policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan.

 Transport: Further information is required as detailed in paragraphs 52 to 59 above to ensure the proposal complies with transport policies contained within chapter 3 of the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Unit (Development & Projects): 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] James Keogh, Case Officer 020 7983 4317 email [email protected]

page 18