Pride Court 80-82 White Lion Street, London Planning Statement

Weldonbrook Limited October 2018

© 2018 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd, trading as Lichfields. All Rights Reserved. Registered in England, no. 2778116. 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL Formatted for double sided printing. Plans based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright reserved. Licence number AL50684A 15693/BK/LH 16398583v2

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

Scope of the Application 1 Structure of Statement 1

2.0 Site and Surroundings 3

The Site 3 Surrounding Area 4

Planning History 4

3.0 Pre-Application Consultation 6

4.0 Planning Policy Considerations 8

National Planning Policy and Guidance 8

Statutory Development Plan 8

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance 11

5.0 Proposed Development 12

6.0 Technical Assessments Summary 14

Retail Statement 14

Transport Statement 14

Delivering and Servicing Plan 14

Sustainable Design and Construction Statement 15

7.0 Planning Assessment 16

Principle of Development 16

Design 17

Heritage Considerations 17 Accessibility and Inclusive Design 17

Dwelling Mix and Size 18

Residential Amenity and Standard of Living Environment 18 Access, Parking and Servicing 18

Energy and Sustainability 19

Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Area 19

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 21

8.0 Summary and Conclusions 22

Pride Court : Planning Statement

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared on behalf of Weldonbrook Limited to accompany an application for full planning permission in relation to Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, London, N1 9PF. The application seeks planning permission for the following:

The change of use of the ground floor floorspace to provide a 177.4sqm restaurant (A3 use class) and refurbishment and reconfiguration of the remaining floorspace at, first, second and third floor levels to provide 1178.3sqm office space (B1 use class) and two residential units (C3 use class), and associated alterations to the White Lion Street façade.

1.2 Pride Court currently comprises of inefficient, poor quality commercial spaces and two residential units (providing substandard accommodation). The proposed development presents an opportunity to re-provide the existing quantum of commercial floorspace at the site whilst significantly enhancing the quality of the accommodation and increasing its employment generating potential. It will also provide two high-quality residential units and a restaurant within a town centre location.

1.3 Prior to the submission of the application, the applicant has engaged within pre-application discussions with the London Borough of Islington (LBI) in June 2018 and the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team at Transport for London (TfL) in July/August 2018. Scope of the Application

1.4 The planning application is accompanied by the following documents: 1 Application Form; 2 Planning Statement (this Statement); 3 Application Drawings and Schedules, prepared by Stockwool, as listed at Appendix 1 of this Statement; 4 Design and Access Statement, prepared by Stockwool; 5 Retail Statement, prepared by Lichfields; 6 Transport Statement, prepared by Caneparo Associates; 7 Delivery and Servicing Plan, prepared by Caneparo Associates; 8 Sustainable Design and Construction Statement, prepared by NRG Consulting; and 9 CIL Additional Information Form.

1.5 The scope of the planning application accords to the London Borough of Islington’s: Local Validation Requirements for Planning Applications (June 2017). Structure of Statement

1.6 This Planning Statement is divided into the following subsequent sections:

• Section 2 provides a description of the site and surroundings and summaries the site’s planning history;

• Section 3 details the pre-application consultation which has been undertaken in relation to the development proposals;

• Section 4 summarise the relevant planning policy and guidance;

• Section 5 describes the proposed development;

Pg 1

Pride Court : Planning Statement

• Section 6 provides a summary of the technical assessments;

• Section 7 contains a comprehensive assessment of the proposed development in planning terms; and

• Section 8 provides a summary and sets out our conclusions.

Pg 2

Pride Court : Planning Statement

2.0 Site and Surroundings The Site

2.1 Pride Court comprises a mixed-use office and residential building situated on the north side of White Lion Street. The existing building occupies the majority of the site and rises to four storeys with a central rectangular courtyard. At ground floor level an under-croft route located to the eastern edge of the site provides access to six parking spaces used by the existing office units and servicing access for the McDonalds restaurant located to the rear of the site on Chapel Market. The ground floor is set back from White Lion Street and the building is accessed from both the street and via the internal courtyard which is accessible from the servicing area.

2.2 The building has four internal circulation cores which provide shared access to the commercial and residential units. The ground floor also includes an internal means of escape route, along the western side of the building; from the McDonalds to White Lion Street. The building’s floorplates, vertical circulation arrangements and this long escape corridor are highly inefficient and limit the building’s practical use and commercial viability (particularly at ground floor level).

2.3 The table below demonstrates the inefficiency of the existing building by comparing the rentable floorspace (i.e. the commercial and residential floorspace) against the size of the circulation/corridor areas 1.

Table 1: Existing Rentable Floorspace (NIA) Location Rentable Space (sqm) Circulation/Corridor Overall Percent of Space (sqm) Rentable Space (%) Ground Floor 71.5 96.1 42.66 First Floor 299.7 69.1 81.3 Second Floor 415.6 65.8 86.3 Third Floor 391.5 63.9 86.0 Total 1,178.3 294.9 80

2.4 There are two residential units located within the building; a studio apartment at ground floor level and a three-bedroom unit at first floor level. The residential units have no access to any private amenity space and have a poor-quality outlook (over an internal courtyard space or the existing servicing area). The units are accessed via the servicing area to the east of the site and through the internal courtyard. Access to the upper floors of the building is via stairs only; no lift access is provided.

2.5 The existing building displays characteristics of post-modernism; the White Lion Street façade is spilt vertically into two halves; stone-faced blockwork is the principle building material and there are arched parapets at roof level. The block-work and cladding appear weathered and the building presents an unattractive frontage to the street which detracts from the streetscene.

2.6 The site is subject to the following policy designations: 1 ‘Angel Town Centre’ as per the Islington Local Plan Policies Map (June, 2013);

1 for further details regarding the location of the rentable spaces and sizes please refer to the Existing Floor Plans, prepared by Stockwool, submitted in support of the application.

Pg 3

Pride Court : Planning Statement

2 ‘Site Allocation AUS4’, identified for intensification of existing uses within the Islington Local Plan Polices Map (June 2013). 3 ‘Limits of Land Subject to Consultation’ as per the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction (March, 2015); and 4 ‘Rail Safeguarding Area’ as per the Islington Local Plan Policies Map (June, 2013).

2.7 The site itself is not located within a Conservation Area but is located approximately 30m to the east of the Chapel Market/Baron Street Conservation Area. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6a (where 1 is least accessible and 6b is most accessible); and is located circa. 160m west of Angel Tube Station. Surrounding Area

2.8 The site is bounded by a McDonalds restaurant and its associated servicing area to the north, an Iceland supermarket to east which is recessed back from the White Lion Street frontage, White Lion Street to the south and Bradley Close, a 4-storey office building, to the west.

2.9 The section of White Lion Street surrounding the site is highly varied in character and comprises buildings of different dates, materials and architectural styles; however, buildings typically have long, plain and functional facades. Lands uses on White Lion Street vary and include commercial, restaurant, retail and residential uses. Unusually for such an accessible location in Central London, White Lion Street includes a number of vacant and underused yards and has a somewhat neglected character. Planning History

2.10 The site’s planning history, as identified on Islington’s online planning portal, comprises of the following applications:

Table 2: Site Planning History Pre-2016 Application Ref. Description Decision and Date

871779 Demolition of rear part of existing building and erection Approved – 11/07/1998 of four 4 storey office suites for use within Classes B1 or A2

P011625 Installation of roof level condensers for office cooling Approved 29/10/2001 system

P030638 Installation of 5no. small inverter cooling units on the 3rd Approved - 27/06/2003 floor flat roof

P06122 Retention of four satellite dishes on 3rd floor flat roof Approved - 25/07/2006

P090673 Retention of conversion from office space to four self- Refused; loss of commercial contained flats floor space suitable for small businesses – 09/06/2009

P2013/4767/COL Certificate of Lawfulness (existing) for the use of ground Approved – 22/01/2014 and first floor as two self-contained residential flats

Pg 4

Pride Court : Planning Statement

2.11 More recently an application (LPA reference: 16/1745/FULL) was refused on 9 December 2016 for the:

‘Refurbishment and extension of Pride Court building to create 7 no. new residential flats (consisting of 3no. x 1bed flats, 3no. x 2bed flats and 1no. x 3bed flat) and amalgamation and change of use of the existing ground floor front commercial unit (use class B1) and rear residential flat (use class C3) to a cafe (A3). The works include internal alterations, facade treatment to the roadside south elevation, alterations to ground floor shopfront and building entrance, creation of ground level cycle parking and refuse storage areas, creation of front facing balconies at second and third floors, and single storey roof extension to the front and rear parts of the building including a roof terrace associated with proposed roof level flat’.

2.12 The reasons for refusing the 2016 application are summarised as follows: 1 Loss of B1 office floorspace; 2 No evidence was provided to demonstrate the proposed A3 restaurant would not have adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Angel Town Centre (contrary to the requirements of Policy DM4.4); 3 The proposed design, detail and appearance of the elevation to White Lion Street was considered to form discordant and visually poor additions that would detract from the character and appearance of the host building and wider urban setting; and 4 The proposal was considered to conflict with the construction and operation of Crossrail 2, as the site falls within the limits of the safeguarding as set out in the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Directions made by the Secretary of State for Transport in March 2015.

2.13 The current proposal has been developed to address each of these reasons for refusal. It will re- provide and enhance the site’s commercial floorspace and will allow for a ground floor restaurant space which will strengthen the viability of Angel Town Centre. The amended scheme is of a high-quality design and will enhance the visually unattractive character of White Lion Street. Finally, the scale of development proposed is sufficiently modest to ensure there are no conflicts with the site’s safeguarding for Crossrail 2. As outlined in subsequent sections of this Statement and Appendix 3 this has been confirmed by TfL.

Pg 5

Pride Court : Planning Statement

3.0 Pre-Application Consultation

3.1 The proposed development has evolved, since the previously refused application in conjunction with pre-application consultation with LBI and the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team at TfL.

Pre-Application Meeting with the London Borough of Islington

3.2 A pre-application meeting was held on the 8th June 2018 to discuss the proposals. In summary the formal feedback from Officers stated; 1 The relocation of the residential units to the White Lion Street frontage at third floor level is supported; 2 The re-provision of the office space will be an improvement to the currently provided space and the internal efficiency, standard of workspace proposed is considered to benefit the overall offering of commercial (B1) space within this location; 3 The proposed replacement of the existing White Lion Street façade is accepted in principle, subject to high quality design; and 4 A Retail Statement should be submitted to evidence that the proposed ground floor restaurant unit would have no adverse impact on the town centre.

3.3 Since the pre-application meeting the proposals have been developed in response to Officers comments and key amendments to the scheme include:

• The relocation of the private amenity space associated with the two residential units towards the rear of the properties, away from the White Lion Street façade to provide open air roof terraces;

• Amendments to the design of the White Lion Street façade to provide alternative fenestration which gives a more vertical emphasis whilst retaining the existing location of windows to ensure the building receives adequate daylight;

• The provision of accessible, ground floor cycle parking for the restaurant, commercial and retail spaces; and

• Re-provision of the commercial floorspace (NIA).

Pre-Application Consultation with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team, TfL

3.4 The site falls within the Crossrail 2 safeguarding area, but not within an area of surface interest. In March 2015, The Secretary of State for Transport in exercise of the powers conferred by articles 16(4), 25(1) and 29(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (“the Order”), gave direction requiring local planning authorities (including the London Borough of Islington) to consult TfL on planning applications within the safeguarding boundaries, unless classified as ‘excluded development’.

3.5 The definition of ‘excluded development’ contained within Paragraph 3 of the Safeguarding Directions, extract included at Appendix 2, states:

a does not involve any building, engineering or other operation deeper than 3 metres below existing ground level; and

Pg 6

Pride Court : Planning Statement

b does not involve either: (i) an increase in the planned floor space; or

(ii) an increase in the height, of an existing building.’

3.6 The proposed development adheres to definition (a) and (b)(ii) of ‘excluded development’ as the proposal does not include any building, engineering or other operation below the existing ground level; and the existing height of the building would be retained (4 storeys) as the proposal seeks changes to the internal arrangement and façade only.

3.7 Following receipt of the formal pre-application meeting response from LBI, the applicant consulted the Safeguarding Crossrail 2 Team within TfL regarding the proposals for Pride Court in July/August 2018. A copy of the correspondence with the Safeguarding Crossrail 2 team at TfL is contained at Appendix 3 of this Statement.

3.8 A Safeguarding Manager from TfL confirmed on the basis of the information provided (which was the same information as presented at the June 2018 pre-application meeting), and the nature of the proposed development that TfL would have ‘no comment’ to raise with the Local Planning Authority, in relation to the Crossrail 2 safeguarding area, but would include an informative condition on the basis that if planning permission were to be granted the applicant should be aware that the land may be required as a future worksite for the deliver if Crossrail 2.

3.9 The proposed development remains similar to the pre-application proposals, is sufficiently modest and is principally retained within the existing building footprint. As a result, we expect TfL would not object to the proposals on the basis it conflicts with the site’s safeguarding for Crossrail 2. This overcomes the previous reason for refusal (4) in relation to the 2016 application.

Pg 7

Pride Court : Planning Statement

4.0 Planning Policy Considerations

4.1 This section of the Statement outlines national, strategic and local planning policy of relevance to the proposed development. National Planning Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published on 27 March 2012 and revised in July 2018, sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. It states that the purpose of the planning system is ‘to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’ (para 7). Paragraph 8 sets out the three dimensions of sustainable development: ‘economic’ in contributing to a strong and competitive economy; ‘social’ in supporting strong communities and providing the supply of housing required for present and future generations; and ‘environmental’ in protecting and enhancing the environment.

4.3 Under the NPPF, it is incumbent upon decision-making authorities to support applications for sustainable development wherever possible and without delay, particularly where that development will help meet the challenges of economic growth and housing need.

4.4 Paragraph 10 establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states:

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking.

4.5 For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Planning Practice Guidance

4.6 In March 2014, the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the web-based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) resource. With regards to decision making, the PPG is a material consideration in the determination of Planning Applications. Statutory Development Plan

4.7 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.8 The Statutory Development Plan for the site comprises:

• At a regional level, the London Plan (2016); and

• At a local level, the LBI Core Strategy (2011), the LBI Development Management Policies Document (DMP)(2013) and the LBI Site Allocations Document (2013).

Pg 8

Pride Court : Planning Statement

The London Plan (2016)

4.9 The London Plan provides the spatial development strategy for Greater London up to 2023 and sets out the policies to ensure than London expands opportunities for growth whilst achieving the highest environmental standards and quality of life.

4.10 Policy 2.10: Central Activities Zone – Strategic Priorities - supports development which enhances and promotes the unique international, national and London-wide roles of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ).

4.11 Policy 2.11: Central Activities Zone – Strategic Functions - states that development should ensure that development proposals to increase office floorspace within the CAZ should include a mix of uses; including housing.

4.12 Policy 3.3: Increasing Housing Supply promotes housing to meet local needs; whilst Policy 3.4: Optimising Housing Potential encourages developments to optimise housing potential, whilst ensuring design is of high quality and meets the minimum space standards as set by Policy 3.5: Quality and Design of Housing Developments.

4.13 In relation to transport, Policy 6.1: Strategic Approach encourages the closer integration of transport and development, in order to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, whilst Policies 6.9: Cycling and 6.10: Walking specifically promote cycling and walking.

4.14 Policy 7.4: Local Character requires development to have regard to the form, function and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings.

4.15 Policy 7.6: Architecture requires that development make a positive contribution to coherent public realm, streetscape and wider cityscape and incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context.

The Draft New London Plan

4.16 The draft New London Plan showing minor suggested changes, which includes clarifications, corrections and factual updates to the Consultation Draft Plan (published in December 2017), was published on 13th August 2018.

4.17 The New London Plan, whilst in draft form is being used in the development management decision making process and has informed the development of the proposals for Pride Court.

Islington Core Strategy (2011)

4.18 The Core Strategy (CS) sets out the strategy, vision and key policies for development in Islington up to 2025. The following provides a summary of policies relevant to the development proposals for Pride Court:

• Policy CS5: Angel and Upper Street protects business floorspace and promotes the intensification of existing uses within the area.

• Policy CS9: Protecting and Enhancing Islington’s Built and Historic Environment requires high quality architecture and design which is sympathetic in scale and appearance. Development should be based on coherent street frontages and should fit into the existing context of facades.

• Policy CS10: Sustainable Design seeks to minimise Islington’s contribution to climate change and ensure that the borough develops in a way which respects environmental limits and improves quality of life.

Pg 9

Pride Court : Planning Statement

• Policy CS11: Waste requires developments to provide waste and recycling facilities which fit current and future collection practices and targets and are accessible to all.

• Policy CS12: Meeting the Housing Challenge seeks to ensure; residents of the borough have a good quality of life; accommodation satisfies residential space and design standards, is accessible and provides a range of different sized units.

• Policy CS13: Employment Spaces safeguards existing business space and encourages development which improves the quality of existing provision.

• Policy CS14: Retail and Services requires development proposals which proposes an increase in size to be supported by a relevant assessment to demonstrate no determinantal impact on the existing functions of the town centre.

Development Management Policies

4.19 The DMP Document adds detail to, and complements the spatial and strategic policies in the CS and seeks to deliver the vision and objectives to bring forward sustainable development. The following provides a summary of policies relevant to the development proposals for Pride Court:

• Policy DM2.1: Design requires development to be of a high-quality design which makes a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area.

• Policy DM2.2: Inclusive Design requires development to provide for ease of and versatility in use.

• Policy DM2.3: Heritage provides encouragement for development which makes a positive contribution to Islington’s local character and distinctiveness.

• Policy DM3.1: Mix of Housing Sizes requires all sites to provide a good mix of housing sizes.

• Policy DM3.2: Existing Housing resists the loss of existing self-contained housing unless the housing is replaced with at least equivalent floorspace.

• Policy DM3.4: Housing Standards requires all new housing to be of adequate size, shape and layout in accordance with the minimum standards. The design of residential units should demonstrate due consideration to the aspect, outlook from habitable rooms, noise, ventilation, privacy and light. Dwellings should be provided with step-free or lift access.

• Policy DM3.5: Private Outdoor Space requires residential development to provide good quality private outdoor space.

• Policy DM4.2: Entertainment and the Night Time Economy requires uses such as restaurants to be compatible with other town centre uses and not result in a significant adverse effect on amenity.

• Policy DM4.3: Location and Concentration of Uses resists proposals for restaurants where; they would result in negative cumulative impacts due to an inacceptable concentration of such uses; and would cause unacceptable effects on the amenity, character and function of an area.

• Policy DM4.4: Promoting Islington’s Town Centres requires applications which provide 80sqm of restaurant floorspace within town centres in the Central Activities Zone to demonstrate the proposed use would not individually, or cumulatively with other development, have detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre.

• Policy DM5.1: New Business Floorspace encourages the intensification, renewal, modernisation of existing building floorspace and flexible design features.

Pg 10

Pride Court : Planning Statement

• Policy DM5.2: Loss of Existing Business Floorspace states proposals that would result in a loss or reduction of business floorspace will be refused unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

• Policy DM7.1: Sustainable Design and Construction requires development proposals to integrate best practice and sustainable design standards, during design, construction and operation of development.

• Policy DM7.2: Energy Efficiency and Carbon Reduction in Minor Schemes requires developments to achieve best practice energy efficiency standards, in terms of design and specification.

• Policy DM7.4: Sustainable Design Standards.

• Policy DM8.2: Managing Transport Impacts requires development proposals to; have no negative impacts on the safe and efficient operation of transport infrastructure; maximise, safe and convenient accessibility; adequately address delivery, servicing and drop off requirements and have no significant impacts on the wider environment.

Site Allocations (June 2013)

4.20 LBI’s Site Allocations Document sets out specific policies for key sites within the borough where change is expected. The site is located within Site Allocation AUS4 ‘Islington High St/Chapel Market/White Lion Street, N1’ which is allocated for the intensification of commercial and retail uses. The policy requires development at this location to add to the attractiveness of the town centre and conserve and enhance the setting of the surrounding Conservation Area.

4.21 The document also encourages applicants with proposals within the allocation to liaise with Crossrail in advance of application submissions; for further detailing regarding the pre- application consultation with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team (TfL) please refer to Section 3 of this Statement. Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance

4.22 The following supplementary planning documents and guidance are relevant material considerations in regards to the proposed development:

Greater London Authority SPDs and SPGs

• Central Activities Zone (CAZ) SPG (2016);

• Housing SPG (2016);

• Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (October 2014);

• Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context (June 2014); and

• Sustainable Design and Construction (April 2014); London Borough of Islington’s SPDs

• Inclusive Design in Islington SPD (2014);

• Islington’s Urban Design Guide SPD (2017); and

• Location and Concentration of Uses SPD (2016).

Pg 11

Pride Court : Planning Statement

5.0 Proposed Development

5.1 The proposal involves the reconfiguration of the internal arrangements of the existing building to reduce the number of internal cores from four to two; the relocation of the existing means of escape from McDonalds to White Lion Street; the realignment of the existing servicing access at the eastern edge of the site; and enhancement of the building’s street frontage.

5.2 The proposed development will comprise the following mix of uses: 1 177.4sqm ground floor restaurant; 2 Re-provision of 1178.3sqm flexible office space located at ground, first, second and third floor levels arranged in a more efficient layout; and 3 Re-provision of two residential units located towards the southern aspect of the building at third floor level.

5.3 The proposed internal alterations and re-designed façade will increase the efficiency of the building and will result in a marginal uplift in floorspace (circa. 3% increase in GIA area). The proposed replacement façade will extend up to the maximum height of the existing façade. The scale and massing of the building will otherwise remain unchanged.

5.4 The existing and proposed floorspace are detailed on the Existing Schedule of Accommodation (ref. PL(20)109) and Proposed Schedule of Accommodation (ref. PL(20)120) submitted in support of this application. The table below provides a summary of the existing and proposed NIA floorspace.

5.5 Table 3: Existing and Proposed Floorspace (NIA) Measure Location Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Restaurant Commercial Commercial Residential Residential sqm NIA Ground 177.4 71.5 54.9 52.4 0 First 0 299.7 446.4 121.6 0 Second 0 415.6 446.4 0 0 Third 0 391.5 230.6 0 166.1 TOTAL 177.4 1178.3 1178.3 174 166.1

Proposed Uses

5.6 The proposed commercial space will replace current sub-standard commercial floorspace at ground, first, second and third floor level. Each commercial unit will be accessible, from White Lion Street and the provision of flexible floorspace and a lift will better meet the needs of modern office occupiers.

5.7 The proposed ground floor restaurant will provide an active frontage to White Lion Street.

5.8 The proposed residential units comprise; a 3-bedroom (5-person) unit and a 2-bedroom (4- person unit). Each unit has an area of private amenity space located to the rear of the property. The dwellings, located towards the southern aspect of the building are both dual aspect units. Each unit is accessible via a stair core and a lift, with the residential access into to the building obtained from the White Lion Street frontage.

Pg 12

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Replacement White Lion Street Façade

5.9 The proposed replacement façade will rationalise the building line to align with the established building line to the west of the site. The alterations to the frontage also represents a more efficient use of the site. The proposed flat roof, a common feature within the local context of the site, will ensure that the building is not an overly prominent feature within the townscape and is integrated coherently into the streetscape.

5.10 The existing vertical spilt of the building into two halves will be retained to give the impression of narrower building plots; a common characteristic of the area. The proposed fenestration will reflect the existing arrangement in order to establish a sense of vertical rhythm across the two building halves.

Servicing, Access and Parking

5.11 Vehicle access into the site will be obtained from the existing access point from White Lion Street. The existing servicing area has been re-designed in order to serve the proposed restaurant use, the commercial space and the existing McDonalds located to the north of the site.

5.12 Further details regarding the proposed servicing arrangements for the proposed servicing of the restaurant unit and the existing McDonalds are provided within the Delivery and Servicing Plan, prepared by Caneparo Association, submitted in support of this application.

5.13 The proposed development will be car free. A total of 35 cycle parking spaces will be provided (as shown on the Proposed Ground Floor Plan ref: PL(20)110) these comprise:

• An internal cycle store with 4 cycle spaces for use by the residents of the building. This store is located adjacent to the residential and commercial entrances to the building;

• 12 publicly accessible cycle spaces located in a secure, location within the under-croft area, accessed from White Lion Street;

• 19 josta stacking cycle spaces located internally at the rear of the building for use by those using the commercial space within the building.

Proposed Means of Escape

5.14 The MoE in relation to the McDonalds restaurant is proposed to be relocated to the east of the site and would no longer be internally contained within the Pride Court building. This route, which is separated from the servicing area, will provide a direct, external, safe access route from the McDonalds restaurant to White Lion Street. The proposed route of the MoE can be seen on plan Proposed Ground Floor Plan (ref: PL(20)110).

5.15 The proposed primary and secondary MoE routes from the Pride Court building and the McDonalds restaurant have been developed in accordance with ‘HM Government’s: The Building Regulations 2010 Fire Safety Approved Document B: Volume 2 – Buildings Other Than Dwelling Houses – Limitation on Travel Distances (Table 2, page 33)’. The proposed routes of escape are shown on the series of plans included at Appendix 1 of the Design and Access Statement, prepared by Stockwool.

Pg 13

Pride Court : Planning Statement

6.0 Technical Assessments Summary Retail Statement

6.1 The Retail Statement, also prepared by Lichfields provides a qualitative assessment of the proposed development against relevant retail planning policy. An initial sequential review of vacant sites within Angel Town Centre confirmed that there are no better alternatives to the application site for Class A3 (restaurant uses). The Statement considers that the provision of the proposed restaurant unit will support and complement the existing offer within the town centre and not give rise to any negative cumulative impact; given the proposed scale, and the fact such uses are encouraged within the Town Centre location.

6.2 The Statement concludes that the proposed restaurant is of an appropriate scale, character and function and would be entirely compatible with Angel Town Centre; and in turn will contribute positively to the vitality and viability of the town centre. The potential impact on amenity is small given the compatibility of the proposed uses and the predominant land uses in proximity of the site. The use of appropriate planning conditions would adequately manage and mitigate any potential impacts on amenity. On the basis of the above, the proposed development fully complies with the provisions of the NPPF and statutory development plan. Transport Statement

6.3 The Transport Statement, prepared by Caneparo Associates examines the effects of the proposed development on the local highway network and considers practical issues such as the servicing arrangements, trip generation, accessibility and parking matters. To summarise:

• Given the site’s highly accessible location (PTAL 6a) the majority of trips associated with the proposed development can be expected to be made by sustainable modes of travel. The proposed development will be car free.

• Cycle parking will be provided in accordance with the new Draft London Plan standards within a secure, sheltered and accessible location.

• Deliveries and servicing will be undertaken within the onsite servicing area. The existing level of vehicle activity and anticipated additional servicing trips generated by the proposed restaurant element of the proposals can be accommodated for.

6.4 The Statement concludes that the proposed development will not be a material or noticeable impact on the local highway or public transport networks and accords with relevant policy and guidance. Delivering and Servicing Plan

6.5 The Delivering and Servicing Plan, prepared by Caneparo Associates, outlines the measures that will be implemented with regards to servicing activity (including refuse/recycling storage and collection) and the delivery of goods associated with the proposed development.

6.6 The Plan states:

• All deliveries to the site will be undertaken from the on-site servicing area;

• Servicing access to the McDonalds restaurant will be retained throughout construction and operation;

• Servicing access is taken from White Lion Street, from the existing access point;

• Refuse collection will be undertaken from the on-site servicing area; and

Pg 14

Pride Court : Planning Statement

• Waste storage will be provided within the servicing area and is located within a 10m walk of White Lion Street to enable efficient collection by refuse operators. Sustainable Design and Construction Statement

6.7 The Sustainable Design and Construction Statement, prepared by NRG Consulting, demonstrates how the proposed development achieves best practice sustainability standards with regards to water, materials, energy, ecology and adaptation to climate change. The Statement concludes the proposed development has been designed to meet all sustainability standards in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS10, LBI’s Development Control Policies and Environmental Design SPD.

Pg 15

Pride Court : Planning Statement

7.0 Planning Assessment Principle of Development

Commercial Floorspace

7.1 Pride Court, as existing, is a mixed-use building. The proposal reconfigures the internal floorspace to improve the building’s efficiency and will re-provide the existing commercial floorspace (total 1,178.3sqm) in accordance with Policy CS13.

7.2 By improving the internal efficiency of the building, the overall percentage of rentable commercial floorspace in comparison to the percentage of circulation increases and allows for the building to retain the existing level of commercial floorspace and in addition, introduce a restaurant at ground floor level and better quality residential accommodation.

7.3 The reconfiguration of the building to re-provide the existing commercial floorspace supports the function of the CAZ by protecting and modernising the existing office stock to improve its efficiency and quality in order to meet modern occupiers needs. The qualitative enhancement in the standard of workspace at the site will markedly improve the existing low-grade accommodation and yield an uplift in permanent jobs at the site. In addition, the internal reconfiguration of the floor layouts and improved accessibly mean the commercial floorspace can be utilised flexibly, including the option of occupation by small enterprises.

7.4 The principle of re-providing the existing employment floorspace and the modernisation of the building, and its employment space is compliant with London Plan Policies 2.10, 2.11 and 4,2, CS Policy CS7 and Policy DM5.1. In addition, the formal pre-application response confirms the principle of re-providing and improving the existing commercial floorspace is compliant with local planning policies.

7.5 In addition the re-provision of the existing levels of commercial floorspace overcomes reason for refusal (1) in relation to the 2016 application.

Restaurant Use

7.6 The provision of a ground floor restaurant within this established town centre location will create jobs (circa. 8 full time jobs, Homes and Communities Agency; Employment Density Guide, 2015 2), complement surrounding land uses, contribute to the night time economy and enliven the street frontage within this section of White Lion Street; which will subsequently improve the legibility of the area.

7.7 The principle of introducing a restaurant use and retaining commercial and residential uses at this location is supported by Site Allocation AUS4 of the Islington Local Plan; which seeks to intensify existing land uses present in this defined town centre location. Furthermore, Policy DM4.2 also promotes restaurant uses within Town Centre Locations.

7.8 The submitted Retail Statement, also prepared by Lichfields, effectively demonstrates in accordance with Policy DM4.4 that the proposed restaurant unit would not result in any determinantal effect to the existing town centre and would contribute positivity to the vitality and viability of the area. The evidence presented within the Retail Statement overcomes reason for refusal (2) in relation to the 2016 application.

2 Homes and Communities Agency: Employment Density Guide (2015) – ‘4. Employment Density Matrix’ available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484133/employment_densit y_guide_3rd_edition.pdf, last accessed: [24/09/2018].

Pg 16

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Residential Units

7.9 The formal pre-application response confirmed the relocation/re-provision of the existing residential units is supported. The principle of re-providing residential units accords with Policy DM3.2. The proposed residential units will be of adequate size and the layout of rooms will result in more functional and useable spaces. In addition, the site is well located in terms of public transport and residents will easily be able to access local services and shops. As a result, the site is appropriate for residential use. The principle of retaining the residential use at the ite was support by LBI Officers during pre-application discussions.

Summary

7.10 The proposed land use mix is consistent with the objectives and requirements of planning policy which seeks to promote more intensive forms of mixed use development to maximise employment opportunities, introduce a complementary restaurant use and provide high quality residential accommodation in an exceptionally accessible location. Design

7.11 The introduction of a high quality, contextually appropriate façade to the building in place of the unattractive existing elevation represents a significant local benefit. The proposals will enhance the area’s townscape and visual amenity and enhance views to the site from Islington High Street and Baron Street along a principle east west route to and from Angel Underground Station. On this basis, the development complies with the requirements of London Plan Policy 7.4 and Core Strategy Policy CS9.

7.12 The building’s front building line/frontage will be rationalised to sit in line with adjacent buildings to the west. The proposed flat roof will integrate the building, more coherently, within the existing site context. The proposed façade provides a modern but contextual response to the site’s location and will contribute more positively to the existing streetscape in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.6. This overcomes the previous reason for refusal (3) in relation to the 2016 application.

7.13 The alterations to the frontage also represent a more efficient use of the site and allow for no ‘left over’ or unused space, in accordance with the principles of Secured by Design.

7.14 The proposed vertical spilt of the building into two halves and the arrangement of fenestration on the façade, takes influence from the existing arrangement and achieves a regular rhythm through repetition of its vertical elements. This accords with the guidance within Section 2.26 of the Islington Urban Design SPD. Heritage Considerations

7.15 The site itself does not comprise any designated or non-designated heritage assets. However, the site is located approximately 30m east of the Chapel Market/Baron Street Conservation Area (CA). The proposed development would replace the existing façade which is of limited architectural quality with a modern façade that uses high quality materials. As such, views looking towards the CA will be enhanced and the proposals would have moderate beneficial effect on the setting of the CA in accordance with Policy DM2.3. Accessibility and Inclusive Design

7.16 The proposed development has been designed in regard to the principles of inclusive design. Level pedestrian access will be provided into the building from White Lion Street via two separate entrances; one which serves the restaurant and one which serves the commercial and

Pg 17

Pride Court : Planning Statement

residential units. The upper levels of the building will be accessible via a lift as well as stairs to ensure an inclusive environment for future occupiers. The proposed development will replace an existing building which has limited accessibility (the upper floors are accessible via stairs only) and is considered acceptable in terms of accessibility and inclusive design. Dwelling Mix and Size

7.17 The proposed 3-bedroom (5-person) unit and a 2-bedroom (4-person unit) unit will provide residential accommodation which complies with the space standards as set within the London Plan and Table 3.2 of the LBI’s DMP Document. The proposed residential units will replace the existing sub-standard studio unit and three-bedroom unit. The proposed units would make a enhanced contribution, when compared with the existing offer, to meeting the housing needs of the borough; and are suitable for family occupation. On the basis of the above, the proposed development therefore accords with Policy CS12. Residential Amenity and Standard of Living Environment

7.18 The proposed development has been sensitively designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable effects on residential amenity on neighbouring residential properties or to the residential units within the site in accordance with Policy DM2.1. The existing building massing and will be retained as existing and as such, there would be no impact on neighbouring properties; in addition, there are no residential properties immediately adjacent or opposite the application site.

7.19 Given the location and distance separation between the site and any existing residential properties the proposed restaurant unit would not cause unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The restaurant would be located at ground floor level, two floors below the proposed residential units. In addition, Site Allocation AUS4 directs town centre uses, such as restaurants to town centre locations, alongside residential uses; accordingly, it is considered by planning policy that the two uses can sit alongside each other. The use of appropriate planning conditions will mitigate any perceived effect on residential amenity.

7.20 The proposed dual aspect residential units will be located on the buildings upper floor and are southernly facing. As a result, they will receive sufficient levels of daylight and sunlight and provide a good standard of living for future occupiers in accordance Policy DM3.4. The layout of the proposed residential units provide sufficiently sized rooms, storage spaces and floor to ceiling heights. It is therefore considered the proposed residential units would provide acceptable internal living environments and space standards.

7.21 Each of the residential units will have an area of private amenity space located to the rear of the property. The 3-bedroom unit has an 8.4sqm roof terrace and the 2-bedroom property has a 7.4 sqm roof terrace. The proposed levels of private amenity space exceed the requirements of Policy DM3.5. Access, Parking and Servicing

7.22 The site has a very high level of public transport accessibility (PTAL 6a) and therefore users of the building and future residents will be able to benefit from local bus services which run along White Lion Street and Islington High Street and London Underground services from Angel Station. As concluded within the Transport Statement, prepared by Caneparo Associates, the development will not result in any material impact on the existing highways network in accordance with Policy DM8.2 and NPPF paragraph 109.

Pg 18

Pride Court : Planning Statement

7.23 The entrances into the building will be clearly visible from the public realm in accordance with Policy DM3.4.

7.24 Servicing access into the site will be retained as existing, located at western edge of the site accessed direct from White Lion Street (as shown on the Proposed Ground Floor Plan ref. PL(20)110). For further detailing regarding the proposed servicing of the development and McDonalds restaurant please refer to the Delivering and Servicing Plan, prepared by Caneparo Associates also submitted in support of the planning application.

7.25 Appropriately located cycle parking facilities for residents, users of the restaurant and users of the commercial space have been provided. A total of 35 cycle spaces are provide at accessible, secure and convenient locations in accordance with the Table 10.2 Minimum Cycle Parking Standards of the Draft London Plan.

7.26 In line with Policy DM8.5 the proposed development will be car free. Energy and Sustainability

7.27 The Sustainable Design and Construction Statement, prepared by NRG Consulting submitted in support of the application confirms the proposed development, in accordance with CS Policy 21 and LBI’s Sustainable Design SPD, achieves a maximum water consumption of 105 litres per person per day for the residential units.

7.28 The Energy Strategy contained within the Sustainable Design and Construction Statement demonstrates a reduction of CO2 emission of 22.78% over Part L 2013 for the residential units; this exceeds the 19% target as referenced within the formal pre-application feedback. Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Area

7.29 The site is located within the ‘Limits of Land Subject to Consultation’ as per the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction (March 2015) and the ‘Rail Safeguarding Area’ as per the Islington Local Plan Policies Map (June 2013). As discussed within Section 3 of this Statement, the applicant has engaged within pre-application submission discussions with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team at TfL. TfL have confirmed that they would not object to the proposals on the basis it conflicts with the site’s safeguarding for Crossrail 2.

7.30 In addition, the Crossrail 2 website 3, states: ‘We hope that Crossrail 2 could be operational by the 2030’s, but we are in the very early stages of planning and no decision to build it has been made… Crossrail 2 cannot be built before we have formal consent from the Government, (and) the funds to pay for it … we expect to seek permission to build the new line between 2021 and 2022, and the process would last about two years. If we get the go ahead, construction is expected to start in the early 2020s, with the new line opening from the early 2030’s…’

7.31 Given, the uncertainty surrounding the required land, implementation and funding of Crossrail 2, alongside the fact construction is not anticipated to commence in advance of 2021 the safeguarding direction should not unnecessarily inhibit the development potential of Pride Court. At present the building is highly inefficient and provides sub-standard commercial and residential accommodation. The proposed development, if granted permission, would deliver a number of significant benefits in advance of Crossrail 2 being constructed and would ensure the building remains commercially viable.

3 http://crossrail2.co.uk/next-steps/

Pg 19

Pride Court : Planning Statement

7.32 It is envisaged, should investment to improve the quality of the accommodation not be made imminently, the building would fall into a state of disrepair; with the commercial space becoming unsuitable for modern occupiers; the residential accommodation becoming unfit for purpose; and the White Lion Street façade continuing to weather and degrade resulting in an increasingly negative impact on the streetscene. Therefore, we respectively ask, the proposed development is not resisted, at this moment in time, as a result of the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction.

7.33 In addition, to the uncertainty surrounding the proposed funding and construction of Crossrail 2, there has been a number of recent planning permissions granted on sites located on White Lion Street within the area of ‘Land Subject to Consultation’ as per the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction (March 2015) and the ‘Rail Safeguarding Area’ as per the Islington Local Plan Policies Map (June 2013). These are summarised in Table 4 below:

7.34 Table 4: Recent Planning Permissions on Land Safeguarded for Crossrail 2. Site Approved Development Permission Crossrail 2 (TfL) Address Granted comments 10-14 P2017/0297/FUL August No objection subject to White Lion Demolition of the existing building and the 2018. a planning condition Street construction of a seven storey, plus basement, requiring a construction building providing 6,369sqm of B1 (business) management plan was floorspace, including 279sqm as 3no. flexible B1/D1 attached to the (non-residential institutions) SME units accessed from permission. Angel Mews. Internal substation, cycle storage, and bin stores, roof level plant enclosure, photovoltaic panels, outdoor terraces and associated works. 90-92 P2016/0197/FUL Granted at No objection subject to White Lion Erection of five storey building on the vacant site at appeal a planning condition Street 90-92 White Lion Street to provide A3 (restaurant) on October requiring a construction basement and ground floor, B1 (office) on 1st, 2nd 2017. management plan was and 3rd floors and 1 no. 3-bedroom residential unit attached to the on the top floor. permission. 1-9 White P2016/4721 /FUL October No objection subject to Lion Street The construction of a single storey roof addition at 9 2017. a planning condition White Lion Street to create additional B1 office relating to piling tests floorspace and associated alterations including was attached to the rooftop plant/enclosures; Demolition of existing permission. building to the rear of 9 White Lion Street and construction of a new building to create basement, ground plus six upper floors comprising flexible A1 retail/A3 restaurant and cafe (ground floor), B1 office (basement, and first to third floors), and six residential units (fourth to sixth floors); together with landscaping and associated works’

7.35 On the basis of the table above, large scale developments, including full demolition and reconstruction (some with basement level floorspace) have not been resisted on the basis they would conflict with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction within the LBI. In comparison the proposed development at Pride Court is sufficiently modest and is principally retained within the existing building’s footprint and massing. Therefore, the significant benefits which the proposed development provides at an accessible location should not be resisted on the basis of conflict with Crossrail 2. As such, our client would be willing to accept an informative condition

Pg 20

Pride Court : Planning Statement

attached to planning permission, if granted, that the land may be required as a future worksite to deliver Crossrail 2. This overcomes reason for refusal (4) in relation to the 2016 permission. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

7.36 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) specify CIL will be charged on gross internal floorspace in new development unless, as per Parts 2 and 6 of the regulations the gross internal area of the new build is less than 100sqm. The proposed development results in a marginal increase in floorspace of 55.9sqm and therefore is exempt from CIL charges.

Pg 21

Pride Court : Planning Statement

8.0 Summary and Conclusions

8.1 This Planning Statement provides a detailed assessment of the proposed development in relation to national, strategic and local planning policy and guidance. The development will yield a number of benefits including: 1 The principle of providing a mixed-use scheme which intensifies the existing uses at an accessible location is firmly supported by the local development plan and Site Allocation AUS4. 2 The re-provision and enhancement of existing office accommodation within the CAZ to provide more flexible and accessible floorspace fit for modern occupiers. 3 The retention and improvement of existing residential accommodation to provide units which comply with current space standards, are dual aspect and have private amenity space. 4 Introduction of a ground floor restaurant within a town centre location which enhances the vitality and viability of the area and provides an active frontage to White Lion Street. 5 Reconfiguration and enhancement of the building’s internal circulation and access to improve accessibility. 6 The proposed replacement White Lion Street façade is of the highest design and architectural quality. It will positively contribute and integrate the site within the existing streetscape whilst respecting the local context and character. 7 The development will be car-free and will maximise cycle parking, promoting sustainable modes of travel amongst users/residents of the building. 8 The existing under croft area area will be retained and improved to ensure the proposed development and the McDonalds restaurant can be serviced from an off-street location accessed from White Lion Street. 9 The scheme has been carefully designed to meet all sustainability standards for water, energy, ecology and climate change adaptation in line with policy requirements.

8.2 The principle of development of the site has been accepted by LBI during pre-application discussions and the proposals complies with planning policy and guidance. The Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team at TfL have confirmed the proposed scheme does not conflict with the current Safeguarding Direction. As a result, the significant planning and regeneration benefits associated with the scheme should not be unnecessarily resisted on the basis the site may be required in the future (beyond 2021) for the construction of Crossrail 2. In addition, a number of permissions for larger scale development have been granted by LBI for schemes on White Lion Street on sites which are also located within the ‘Land Subject to Consultation’ as per the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction (March 2015) and the ‘Rail Safeguarding Area’ as per the Islington Local Plan Policies Map (June 2013).

8.3 The proposed scheme overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in relation to the 2016 application it; re-provides the existing commercial floorspace; has no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Angel Town Centre (as evidenced within the submitted Retail Statement); is of high quality design which positively enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding context; and as confirmed by TfL, it does not conflict with the current Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction.

Pg 22

Pride Court : Planning Statement

8.4 It is concluded that the proposed development embodies the principles of sustainable development promoted through the NPPF, complies with the objectives and requirements of the development plan and is acceptable with regards to all other material considerations.

Pg 23

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Appendix 1: Application Drawings

Drawing Title Reference Status Site Location Plan PL(20)10 For approval Existing Plans Existing Ground Floor PL(20)100 For information Existing First Floor PL(20)101 For information Existing Second Floor PL(20)102 For information Existing Third Floor PL(20)103 For information Existing Ground Floor Survey PL(20)104 For information Existing First Floor Survey PL(20)105 For information Existing Second Floor Survey PL(20)106 For information Existing Third Floor Survey PL(20)107 For information Existing Indicative Roof Plan PL(20)108 For information Existing Schedule of Accommodation PL(20)109 For information Existing Elevations Survey Drawings Front Elevation PL(20)200 For information Survey Drawings Courtyard Elevation 1 PL(20)201 For information Survey Drawings Courtyard Elevation 2 PL(20)202 For information Survey Drawings Courtyard Elevation 3 PL(20)203 For information Survey Drawings Courtyard Elevation 4 PL(20)204 For information Survey Drawings Section A-A PL(20)205 For information Proposed Plans Proposed Ground Floor PL(20)110 For approval Proposed First Floor PL(20)111 For approval Proposed Second Floor PL(20)112 For approval Proposed Third Floor PL(20)113 For approval Proposed Roof Plan PL(20)114 For approval Proposed Ground Floor with Existing Layout PL(20)115 For information Underlay Proposed First Floor with Existing Layout PL(20)116 For information Underlay Proposed Second Floor with Existing Layout PL(20)117 For information Underlay Proposed Third Floor with Existing Layout PL(20)118 For information Underlay Proposed Roof Plan PL(20)119 For approval Proposed Schedule of Accommodation PL(20)120 For approval Proposed Elevations Proposed Front Elevation PL(20)210 For approval Section A-A Courtyard Elevation 1 PL(20)211 For approval Section B-B Courtyard Elevation 2 PL(20)212 For approval Section C-C Courtyard Elevation 3 PL(20)213 For approval Section D-D Courtyard Elevation 4 PL(20)214 For approval

Pg 24

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Appendix 2: Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction, March 2015

Pg 25

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

SAFEGUARDING DIRECTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING THE ROUTE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS PROPOSED BY TRANSPORT FOR LONDON FOR THE CROSSRAIL 2 RAIL PROJECT; WIMBLEDON TO NEW SOUTHGATE; STOKE NEWINGTON TO TOTTENHAM HALE; SHOREDITCH PARK TO HACKNEY CENTRAL

The Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred by articles 16(4), 25(1) and 29(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (“the Order”)1, gives the following directions to the local planning authorities named in the Schedule.

1. These Directions come into force on 24 March 2015. These Directions apply to any application for planning permission which:

a. has not been fully determined by that date;

b. which relates to development within any of the land specified in paragraph 2; and

c. is not development of a kind described in paragraph 3 (“excluded development”).

2. The land referred to in paragraph 1 is the land shown bounded by lines marked “Limits of Land Subject to Consultation (Safeguarding Limits)” on the plans signed by the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport, annexed to this Direction (”the plans”) and numbered:

(a) 1 to 3, 3A to 3C and 4 to 6 in the London Borough of Merton;

(b) 3C and 5 to 15 in the London Borough of Wandsworth;

(d) 18, 18A and 19 to 23 in the City of Westminster;

(e) 22 to 26 in the London Borough of Camden;

(f) 26 to 29 and 32 in the London Borough of Islington;

(g) 28 to 30, 30A to 30D, 31 to 36, 36A and 36B in the London Borough of Hackney;

(h) 36, 36A to 36D and 37 to 45 in the London Borough of Haringey;

(i) 45 to 47 in the London Borough of Barnet;

(j) 45 to 46 in the London Borough of Enfield.

3. The excluded development referred to in paragraph 1(c) is development within the land shown bounded by lines marked “Limits of Land Subject to Consultation (Safeguarding Limits)” but excluding the land shown shaded and marked “Areas of Surface Interest” on the plans, which:

1 SI 2010/2184 made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8), see in particular section 74. (a) does not involve any building, engineering or other operation deeper than 3 metres below existing ground level; and (b) does not involve either:

(i) an increase in the planned floor space; or (ii) an increase in the height,

of an existing building.

4. (a) Subject to paragraph (b), before: (i) Granting planning permission on any application; or (ii) Passing any resolution to carry out or authorise the carrying out of the proposals for development,

in relation to any application for planning permission to which these Directions apply, a local planning authority must consult Transport for London (“TfL”).

(b) The requirement to consult does not apply where: (i) the development concerned lies within any of the land specified in paragraph 2 and is not within any area shown shaded and marked “Areas of Surface Interest” on the plans, and (ii) the local planning authority proposes to grant planning permission to which a condition is to be attached precluding any building, engineering or other operation deeper than 3 metres below ground level.

5. Where a local planning authority is required by paragraph 4 to consult TfL, it shall not: (a) grant planning permission; or (b) resolve to carry out or authorise the carrying out of the development,

otherwise than to give effect to the recommendation of TfL:

(i) unless it has delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport the material specified in paragraph 6; and (ii) until the expiry of a period of 21 days beginning with the day after the date on which the last item of any such material was delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport.

6. The material referred to in paragraph 5 is:-

(a) a copy of the application together with a copy of any plans or documents submitted with it; (b) a copy of the response of TfL to consultation by the local planning authority in pursuance of paragraph 4; (c) such information regarding the application as the Secretary of State for Transport may require by direction under article 29(6) of the Order; and (d) a statement on the provisions of the development plan and other issues involved, including whether the grant of permission would be contrary to the views of another government department.

7. These Directions replace the Direction issued on 18 June 2008 under articles 10(3), 14(1) and 27 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 for development affecting the route and associated works proposed by Transport for London for the Chelsea-Hackney line project which is cancelled.

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Transport

Rupert Furness, Head of London Transport Division

A Senior Civil Servant in the Department for Transport

24 March 2015

SCHEDULE

City of Westminster

London Borough of Barnet

London Borough of Camden

London Borough of Enfield

London Borough of Hackney

London Borough of Haringey

London Borough of Islington

London Borough of Merton

London Borough of Wandsworth; and

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pride Court : Planning Statement

Appendix 3: Copy of Consultation Correspondence with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Team at TfL

Pg 26

From: Johnson Michael To: Lorna Heslop Cc: Ben Kelway Subject: RE: Proposed Refurbishment and Reconfiguration of Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel [NLP-DMS.FID422213] Date: 02 August 2018 15:48:13 Attachments: image004.png image005.png

Dear Lorna,

Proposed Refurbishment and Reconfiguration of Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel

The change of use of the ground floor floorspace to a 259.1sqm restaurant (A3 use class) and refurbishment and reconfiguration of the remaining floorspace at, first, second and third floor levels to provide 1,383.2qm office space (B1 use class), two residential units (C3 use class) and associated alterations to the White Lion Street façade

Stock Wool Drawings for comment - email dated 27th July2018

By way of background, Transport for London acts as an agent for the Department for Transport in the administration of the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Directions made by the Secretary of State for Transport in March 2015.

The current safeguarded route for Crossrail 2 would connect Wimbledon with New Southgate or Tottenham Hale through new tunnels linking stations at Tooting Broadway, Clapham Junction, Kings Road, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Euston St. Pancras, Angel, Dalston, Seven Sisters, Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace. The tunnels would surface at New Southgate and Tottenham Hale where there would be a connection to Network Rail.

The above property falls within the Safeguarded Limits of Land shown on the plans accompanying the Directions referred to above. This means that any consultation on planning applications submitted to the Local Planning Authority in respect of this site which propose or imply works more than 3 metres below ground level, an increase in height or floor area must include TfL to prevent planning permission being granted for development that might be prejudicial to the subsequent delivery of Crossrail 2.

In answer to your questions 1 and 2 this is a matter for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) based on the nature of the development you are proposing. My reading of your proposals suggests there will be a small increase in floor area which will require the LPA to consult with TfL/ Crossrail 2. I would also suggest that regardless of the Directions the LPA may be minded to consult TfL / Crossrail 2 as part of their general due diligence to ensure they have consulted all parties that may have an interest in the land, whatever that interest may be, and to ensure that the decision maker is aware of any material considerations that they should be taking into account when determining the application.

Question 3 – whether TfL would “object” to the proposals. TfL/ Crossrail 2, on receipt of a consultation on an application for planning permission, would advice the LPA as to whether the development would conflict with the Sec of State’s Safeguarding Directions and recommend a particular course of action. Usually, this would be one of three responses 1. No Comment; 2. Recommend that in the event of planning permission being granted the LPA impose the Crossrail 2 standard conditions or 3. Recommend to the LPA that they refuse permission. On the basis of the information and the nature of the proposed development expressed above my current view is that TfL / Crossrail 2 would have “no comment” to raise with the Local Planning Authority but would include an informative on the basis that if planning permission were to be granted the applicant should be aware that the land may be required as a future worksite for the delivery of /Crossrail 2. This is because the site, along with neighbouring property, was identified in the TfL / Crossrail 2 Autumn 2015 consultation as a potential worksite for the delivery of a Crossrail 2 station at Angel. Whether the land would be included as a worksite is subject to future Government decision on how the project may be taken forward. Any future consultation on a new or amended Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction that could change the Safeguarded status of the land and therefore the recommendation to the LPA. Subject to these decisions and the timing of any planning application submission my advice to the Local Planning Authority may differ to that expressed above.

Crossrail 2 standard conditions relate to the design and construction of the ground floor structures, foundations and basements and for any other structures below ground level, including piling and any other temporary or permanent installations and ground investigations. The developer must be able to demonstrate that the below ground structures –

(i) Accommodate the proposed location of the Crossrail 2 structures including temporary works, (ii) Accommodate ground movement arising from the construction thereof, (iii) Mitigate the effects of noise and vibration arising from the operation of Crossrail 2 within its tunnels and other structures.

Question 4 – see my answer to Q3 above.

Question 5 – this would depend on your proposal, the timing of your submission, the TfL / Crossrail 2 recommendation to the LPA, whether there were changes to the scheme that could address TfL’s concerns and whether the LPA would entertain changes to the scheme. Might I suggest this is starting to get somewhat hypothetical assuming the advice in Q3.

I trust this is of assistance. Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss further

Regards.

Mike.

Michael Johnson BSc. Hons BTP MRTPI Safeguarding Manager Crossrail 2, Transport for London

T: 020 3054 7018 Auto: 87018 M: 0751 505 2717 E: [email protected] 4th Floor, North Wing, 55 Broadway, London. SW1H 0BD

From: Lorna Heslop [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2018 17:52 To: Crossrail2; Safeguardcrossrail2 Cc: Ben Kelway Subject: RE: Proposed Refurbishment and Reconfiguration of Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel [NLP- DMS.FID422213]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for the response below and confirmation that TfL will provide written feedback in relation to the emerging proposals for Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel.

The emerging proposals are somewhat flexible as they seek to enhance the current low quality residential and commercial accommodation. Therefore should TfL have any concerns, which could ultimately lead to the resistance to a future planning application on the basis of conflict with Crossrail 2, we would welcome the opportunity of a meeting; to discuss how these can be addressed/overcome prior to submitting an application to Islington.

Within the written response please can TfL make clear the following: 1. Does the current proposal satisfy the definition of excluded development as per Paragraph 3 of the Safeguarding Direction; 2. Does the current proposal trigger the need for consultation with TfL; 3. Whether TfL would object to a future application of this nature and scale on the basis of the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction; 4. Should TfL object, the reasons for the objection; and 5. Should TfL object, details of possible remedies which will effectively overcome the objection?

Should you wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to give Ben Kelway or me a call.

We look forward to receiving a response.

Kind Regards

Lorna

Lorna Heslop Planner and Urban Designer Lichfields, 14 Regent's Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL T 020 7837 4477 / M 07880385703 / E [email protected] lichfields.uk

This email is for the use of the addressee. It may contain information which is confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or disseminate this email or attachments to anyone other than the addressee. If you receive this communication in error please advise us by telephone as soon as possible. Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited is registered in England, no. 2778116. Our registered office is at 14 Regent's Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL.

P Think of the environment. Please avoid printing this email unnecessarily. From: Crossrail2 Sent: 01 August 2018 13:56 To: Lorna Heslop ; Safeguardcrossrail2 Cc: Ben Kelway ; 'Sean Colvin' ; 'Nigel Crawley' Subject: RE: Proposed Refurbishment and Reconfiguration of Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel [NLP-DMS.FID422213]

Lorna,

Based on the information in your email and seeking views here we may be able to give you a short written response rather which could avoid the need for a meeting.

Leave it with me and I will chase my colleagues here and I will look to get back to you by the end of the week.

Michael Johnson BSc. Hons BTP MRTPI Safeguarding Manager Crossrail 2, Transport for London

T: 020 3054 7018 Auto: 87018 M: 0751 505 2717 E: [email protected] 4th Floor, North Wing, 55 Broadway, London. SW1H 0BD

From: Lorna Heslop [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 July 2018 11:37 To: Safeguardcrossrail2 Cc: Ben Kelway; 'Sean Colvin'; 'Nigel Crawley' Subject: Proposed Refurbishment and Reconfiguration of Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel [NLP- DMS.FID422213]

To whom it may concern,

On behalf of our client, Weldonbrook Limited, we are emailing to request pre-application advice regarding the implications of the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction in relation to proposed alterations to Pride Court, 80-82 White Lion Street, Angel for:

‘The change of use of the ground floor floorspace to a 259.1sqm restaurant (A3 use class) and refurbishment and reconfiguration of the remaining floorspace at, first, second and third floor levels to provide 1,383.2qm office space (B1 use class), two residential units (C3 use class) and associated alterations to the White Lion Street façade’.

The site is located to the north of White Lion Street, as shown on the attached Site Location Plan (within the Pre- Application Document), and falls within the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Area Subject to Consultation (2015) area, but not within an area of surface interest. The current proposal comprises ‘light touch’ enhancement works to render the building more useable and commercially viable (i.e. improve internal efficiency), and more visually attractive.

Please find attached a copy of the pre-application submission which was made to London Borough of Islington (LBI) in April 2018 this provides further details on the emerging proposals. Following a pre-application meeting in June 2018, LBI have since confirmed they will consult TfL on any application made on the site. As such, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with TfL to discuss the emerging proposals in relation to the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction.

We understand that local planning authorities are required to consult TfL on planning applications within the safeguarding boundaries, unless classified as ‘excluded development’. The definition of ‘excluded development’ contained within Paragraph 3 of the Safeguarding Directions states:

‘(3) The excluded development referred to in paragraph 1(c) is development within the land shown bounded by lines marked “Limits of Land Subject to Consultation (Safeguarding Limits)” but excluding the land shown shaded and marked “Areas of Surface Interest” on the plans, which: a) does not involve any building, engineering or other operation deeper than 3 metres below existing ground level; and b) does not involve either: (i) an increase in the planned floor space; or (ii) an increase in the height, of an existing building.’

The proposed development adheres to definition (a) and (b)(ii) of ‘excluded development’ as the proposal does not include any building, engineering or other operation below the existing ground level; and the existing height of the building would be retained (4 storeys) as the proposal seeks changes to the internal arrangement and façade only.

However, we would like to seek confirmation from TfL that the proposal would be acceptable in regards to definition (b)(i). The proposed development would result in a minor increase in planned floorspace circa. 3% from 1779.6sqm to 1836sqm. The increase in planned floorspace, is primarily a result of reconfiguring the internal arrangements to reduce the number of internal cores and the relocation of the existing means of escape to improve; which are proposed to improve the efficiency of the building. Given, that the minor increase of planned floorspace would be contained within the existing building footprint, would TfL object to the application on the basis of conflict with the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction?

Please can you advise on Officer availability on the following dates: 15th August 2018 (PM); 14th August (AM); and 13th August (AM).

We look forward to discussing this and confirming a suitable approach for moving forward when we meet with you. Should you have any questions or queries relating to our request please do not hesitate to give my colleague Ben Kelway or me a call.

Kind Regards

Lorna

Lorna Heslop Planner and Urban Designer Lichfields, 14 Regent's Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL T 020 7837 4477 / M 07880385703 / E [email protected] lichfields.uk

P Think of the environment. Please avoid printing this email unnecessarily.

Click here to report this email as SPAM.

***********************************************************************************

The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at [email protected] and remove it from your system. If received in error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached files.

Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is at 55 Broadway, London, SW1H 0DB. Further information about Transport for London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses, recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which may be caused by viruses.

***********************************************************************************

Pride Court : Planning Statement

Pg 27