planning report D&P/4170/01 9 October 2017 Ropemaker Street in the London Borough of planning application no. P2017/3103/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 proposal Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a 27-storey building to provide for 63,520 sq.m. of office floorspace and 1,222 sq.m. of flexible retail/professional services/restaurant/cafe floorspace, cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping works.

The applicant The applicant is Manford Properties (BVI) Ltd and Great Elm Assets Ltd and the architect is Make.

Strategic issues summary Principle of development: The principle of development is supported in accordance with London Plan policy and will deliver a qualitative and quantitative improvements to office provision within the City Fringe, as well as space for small and micro businesses. (Paras 18-23). Urban design: The application is supported in line with London Plan policy on urban design (Paras 24-27). Heritage and views: The proposals would not negatively impact the settings of nearby heritage assets or strategic views. The application complies with London Plan policy on heritage and the LVMF (Paras 28-38). Climate change: The scheme is broadly supported in strategic terms. Further commitment and information is required with regard to the on-site communal heating network and the scheme’s potential to connect to future district heat networks (Paras 39-41). Transport: Planning obligations to address the impact on the Underground network, local cycling routes as well as a Deliveries and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan should be secured by s106 agreement. Conditions relating to a two-stage Construction Logistics Plan should also be secured (Paras 42-46).

Recommendation That Islington Council be advised that while the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, it does not fully comply with the London Plan; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 50 of this report could address those deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 8 September 2017 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 12 October 2017 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 Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• “The building comprises floorspace of more than 20,000 sq.m. in Central London.”

• “The building is more than 30 metres high and is outside the .”

3 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.

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

5 This 3,500 sq.m. site comprises Arbuthnot House, 15-24 Ropemaker Street, Court, 101-117 Finsbury Pavement and 10-12 Finsbury Street. It contains two office buildings of nine and seven storeys which collectively contain 19,636 sq.m. of floor space, with retail units at ground floor level. It fronts Ropemaker Street to the south (the borough boundary between Islington and the City), Finsbury Street to the west, and Finsbury Pavement to the east.

6 The surrounding area is largely made of office buildings, also with retail uses at ground floor. The tallest building in the area, City Point, is directly opposite the site to the south of Ropemaker Place. It has a large area of open space and public realm fronting the site. To the west is another large office block, recently constructed - Ropemaker Place. Beyond that is a The Heron, a new residential .

7 Station is a short walk away to the south via Moorfields, which is directly opposite the site. This contains the nearest cycle hire docking station (42 points). Finsbury Pavement forms part of the Strategic Road Network. The site is well served by public transport and has a PTAL rating of 6b, which is excellent. The site will also be served by the Elizabeth Line with the nearest connections at Moorgate and Liverpool Street Crossrail station.

8 The site is within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and City Fringe Opportunity Area.

Details of the proposal

9 The applicant proposes to demolish all existing buildings on site and replace them with a new building of 27 storeys and two basement levels, containing 63,520 sq.m. of new office floorspace in the upper floors and 1,222 sq.m. of retail floorspace at ground floor. Within the office space, there would be provision of 955 sq.m. of workspace specifically for small and micro businesses provided within a ground floor mezzanine level. Cycle storage, changing and shower facilities would be provided at basement level along with storage space for the retail units.

page 2 10 The main entrance to the office lobby would be off Ropemaker Street. Ground floor retail units would front on to Finsbury Pavement and Ropemaker Street. The small and micro business accommodation would have its own separate entrance from Finsbury Pavement.

Figure 1: Proposed ground floor plan.

11 The building would be stepped in form, with landscaped roof terraces provided for office occupiers. There are five terraces in total- three on the east and two on the west of the building. There would also be 14 large balcony spaces which could be used for meetings or amenity space for office workers.

12 The ground floor of the building has been set back to provide increased public realm on Ropemaker Street and the building is designed to create a new public space at the junction of Ropemaker street and Finsbury Pavement. Improvements to the hard landscaping along Finsbury street, Ropemaker Street and Finsbury Pavement are also proposed. The building would be serviced via an internal service bay at ground floor, accessed via Finsbury Street. Case history

13 On 17 January 2017 pre-application discussions were held with the applicant with regards to a similar proposal of 27 storeys, approximately 61,000 sq.m. of office floorspace and retail uses at part basement, ground and first floor level.

14 The principle of an office-led development was supported, as was the provision of SME workspace. The broad design principles are also acceptable, including the increased height, massing and townscape impact, subject to further details and architectural visualisations coming forward at application stage.

page 3

Figure 2: GCI of proposals from above Finsbury Pavement.

page 4 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

15 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Principle of development London Plan; City Fringe OAPF • Urban design London Plan; Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and Context SPG; • Heritage/ strategic views London Plan; London View Management Framework SPG; • Climate change London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy; Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail and the Mayoral Community infrastructure levy SPG.

16 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is Islington Council’s Core Strategy (2011) and Development Management Policies (2013), the Finsbury Local Plan – AAP for Bunhill and (2013) and Site Allocations DPD (2013) and the London Plan 2016 (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011).

17 The Islington Local Plan: Scope of the Review (2016), the City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are also relevant material considerations. Principle of development

18 The site is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and within the City Fringe Opportunity Area. The City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) indicates the potential for the area to deliver 53,000 new jobs and 15,000 new homes.

19 London Plan Policies 4.2 and 2.10 encourage the renewal and modernisation of existing office stock in viable locations to improve its quality and flexibility, seeking increases in current stock where there is evidence of sustained demand for office based activities.

20 The City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) identifies the site as being in the “inner core” of the City Fringe, where demand for office space has been increasing. The City Fringe OAPF envisages the continued expansion of employment floorspace in the inner core area to support London’s critical mass of financial and business services and the growth of the digital- creative sector in Tech City. Furthermore the OAPF recognises the important role that affordable workspace plays in facilitating the continued presence of start-ups and small businesses.

21 The existing building consists of 18,054 sq.m. of office floorspace and 1,298 sq.m. of banking floorspace. The applicant’s proposal to provide 63,520 sq.m. of new office floorspace and 1,222 sq.m. of retail floorspace represents an uplift of 45,390 sq.m. of employment generating floorspace and is supported in line with London Plan Policies 4.2 and 2.10 and the City Fringe OAPF.

22 Having noted the tech-based occupiers of the site at present, and discussed the concern around displacement of such occupiers in the City Fringe with GLA officers at pre-application stage, the applicant has stated that the new space has been specifically designed to attract this kind of occupier. The floorspace proposed will be delivered in a range of sizes, to suit a range of occupiers including small and medium sized enterprises, which is welcome. The applicant is also

page 5 proposing to deliver 955 sq.m. of workspace specifically suited to start-ups and small/ micro enterprises. This space is designed to allow office space to expand and contract according to the needs of occupiers and the building as a whole is intended to be flexible enough to address the ‘grow-on’ needs of small businesses, which is specifically identified as an issue in the City Fringe OAPF. This is supported, as is the inclusion of retail units at ground floor which will activate the public realm and serve the needs of employees in the building and wider area. The principle of development is supported.

Mixed use policy

23 London Plan Policy 2.11 states that development within the CAZ should increase office floorspace and include a mix of uses that includes housing, unless there are exceptional circumstances where such a mix demonstrably conflicts with other policies of the London Plan. At pre-application, Islington Council indicated that this site is more appropriate for a fully office led scheme, noting the Finsbury Local Plan, which seeks the maximum amount of business floor space reasonably in these locations. Given this, and the importance of this area to London’s role as a global business centre, a mixed-use scheme that includes offices but does not include residential development is acceptable in this location. Urban design

24 The proposals activate Finsbury Pavement and Ropemaker Walk, through a combination of design and the inclusions of active ground floor uses and this is strongly supported. Since pre- application, the design has been pulled back at the south-east corner to increase the public realm and improve sightlines towards Moorgate and City Point, which is welcomed.

25 The applicant has undertaken pedestrian comfort analysis which identifies the majority of footfall will occur at the south-east corner of the site. Sufficient pavement width is provided to the remaining edges, including the narrower pavement area along Finsbury Street. The utilisation of the existing access to the servicing/loading bay is acceptable. The applicant has provided details on the landscaping strategy including details of pavement widths, safe crossing points and integration with the public square immediately to the south. This is welcomed.

26 Whilst the proposed development is substantially taller than the existing buildings, the simple and refined architectural approach is supported. Overall, the stepped massing approach successfully mediates between the scale of Ropemaker Place/City Point and the lower rise context to the east and north.

27 Following pre-application discussions, the amendments to the proportions of the western most element, whilst subtle, are welcomed as this improves the skyline composition in views from the Honourable Artillery Company ground, forming an appropriate ‘book end’ to Ropemaker Place.

Heritage and strategic views

28 London Plan Policy 7.8 ‘Heritage Assets and Archaeology’ states that development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets where appropriate. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the tests for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” and in relation to conservation areas, special attention must be paid to “the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

page 6 29 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance is the value of the heritage asset because of its heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic, and may derive from a heritage asset’s physical presence or its setting. Where a proposed development will lead to ‘substantial harm’ to or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Where a development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

30 The applicant has provided a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA), in order to demonstrate the potential impact of the proposals on the settings of local heritage assets and views. There are three grade II* Listed Buildings and 38 Grade II listed buildings within 300 metres of the site, with many more in the wider area. The site is not within a conservation area (CA), however, CA is immediately to the south-east and / CA is to the north-east. The proposals also have the potential to be visible from the Bank, Sun Street, Chiswell Street and Brewery CAs.

31 The TVIA demonstrates that the proposals have the potential to be seen in the near and middle distance views of some of the CAs and listed buildings nearby. The scheme would form part of the foreground or background of views which take in existing large scale and tall buildings of differing architecture, quality and age. It is also noted that the settings of listed buildings closest to the proposals on Moorgate are undergoing change associated with the construction of the Crossrail over-station development at 101 Moorgate. Further change can be expected should the consented development at 120 Moorgate, on the corner with south Place, be constructed.

32 Overall the proposed scheme would be a high quality addition to an already varied townscape, a substantial aesthetic improvement over the existing buildings and, where visible, would enhance the setting of nearby heritage assets. Having considered the submitted TVIA and having considered the potential impacts in the context of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF and London plan Policy 7.8 it is concluded that there would be no harmful impacts on any of the other heritage assets mentioned above.

33 The London View Management Framework SPG provides supplementary guidance relating to London’s key views and how they should be protected and managed. It expands on the guidance provided in London Plan Policies 7.11 and 7.12.

34 The applicant’s TVIA assesses the scheme against the existing and approved conditions, and includes Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) of the potential impact on the relevant strategic views. Whilst the site is considered appropriate for a tall building, the development has the potential to impact upon strategic views of St. Paul’s Cathedral from Westminster Pier (Linear View 8A.1) and King Henry’s Mound (Linear View 9A.1).

35 In relation to LVMF views 8A.1 and 9A.1, it is noted that the scheme falls outside of the background assessment areas. This was the subject of discussion at pre-application stage and the applicant has adopted a stepped approach and overall height datum which responds well to this. The TVIA successfully demonstrates that this approach ensures that the proposals would not impact upon the setting of St Paul’s Cathedral and this is supported.

36 Development may also become visible within the panoramas of several river prospects. The following takes each prospect in turn and summarises the potential impact upon the view:

page 7 • LVMF 16B.1: The South Bank: Gabriel’s Wharf viewing platform – centre of north rail; and LVMF 16B.2. The South Bank: Gabriel’s Wharf viewing platform – centre of north-east rail. The proposed scheme would appear off to the left of the towers of St. Paul’s Cathedral, adjacent to City Point, but appearing lower in both views. There would be a minor visual impact and the proposed use of light coloured stone cladding would further minimise any potential impact. • LVMF 10A.1: Tower : upstream - the North Bastion. The development would not appear in this view, as it obscured entirely by substantially larger, and closer existing delelopment. • LVMF 13A.1: Millennium Bridge - close to the Southwark landing. The proposed development would be just visible in the extreme right of this view and would appear lower than existing buildings. The ability to appreciate St. Paul’s Cathedral would not be impacted. • LVMF 15B.2: Waterloo Bridge: downstream - at the centre of the bridge. The development would partially appear to the left of St. Paul’s Catherdral, and to the right of City Point. The ability to recognise and appreciate St’ Paul’s Cathedral would not be diminished and the proposals would be indistinguishable, particularly when approved development is included. • LVMF 17B.1: Golden Jubilee / Hungerford Footbridges: downstream - crossing the Westminster bank. A very small portion of the buildings upper floors would become visible to the right of City Point, although the building would otherwise be almost entirely obscured by City Point. The proposals would be indistinguishable.

37 The proposed architectural approach and use of high quality materials and detailing is supported and consistent with the scale and character of the site’s context. The TVIA successfully demonstrates that there would be no negative impact on strategic views. The application is compliant with the LVMF and London Plan policies 7.11 and 7.12.

38 The scheme has been the subject of pre-application discussions with officers from the GLA and Islington Council, and has been presented to Islington Council’s Design Review Panel. The design presented reflects refinements made through this process and this is welcomed. Overall, the scheme represents a well-refined solution for the site and is supported in terms of London Plan urban design policy. Climate change

39 The applicant is proposing to install 36 sq.m of photovoltaic (PV) panels and is proposing to connect to the nearby Citigen district heat network. Connection to the network is strongly supported and should be prioritised. The applicant should, however, commit to ensuring that the development is designed to allow connection to an alternative district heating network, in the event that connection to the Citigen network does not materialise.

40 The applicant should also confirm that a communal site heat network, run from a centralised plant room, is proposed and that all uses will be connected. Further information on the floor area, internal layout and location of the plant room should be provided.

41 An on-site reduction of 531 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development is expected, equivalent to an overall saving of 40%. This exceed the target set in London plan Policy 5.2 of the London Plan, and is welcomed. The applicant must, however, address the above comments in order that full compliance with London Plan energy policy can be confirmed.

page 8 Transport

42 The proposed development would be car-free, which is supported in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13. The number of cycle parking spaces proposed meets London Plan standards. The level of short-stay cycle parking, design and locations proposed within the public realm around the site are all acceptable.

43 The development will generate additional strain on the transport network, likely lead to further overcrowding at Moorgate Underground station, and potentially impact the operation of a nearby Cycle Hire dock. The applicant must enter into further discussions with Transport for London in order to assess this impact and agree the necessary planning obligations to make the application acceptable in planning terms.

44 The submitted transport assessment identifies a number of issues with the safety, comfort and attractiveness of key local cycling routes, as well as measures necessary to address these issues. The applicant should carry out further investigation of how the measures identified can be funded and implemented by the Council and applicant via Section 278 works. The applicant must discuss and agree this with Transport for London and Islington Council prior to Stage II.

45 The Deliveries and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan should be secured through the Section 106 agreement for the site and a two-stage Construction Logistics Plan following TfL guidance should be secured by condition.

46 The site in the area where section 106 contributions for Crossrail will be sought in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.5 and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail’ (April 2013). The Mayoral CIL will be treated as a credit towards the section 106 Crossrail liability and this should be reflected in the wording of any section 106 agreement. The charge under the SPG that should be secured through the section 106 is £6,365240, based on 45,466 sq m of net additional office floorspace, charged at £140 per sqm. Local planning authority’s position

47 Council officers are expected to report the application to Islington’s planning committee in October. Legal considerations

48 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. 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

49 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

page 9 Conclusion

50 London Plan policies on land-use, employment, design, heritage and views, and transport are relevant. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

• Principle of development: The principle of development is supported in accordance with London Plan policy and will deliver a qualitative and quantitative improvements to office provision within the City Fringe, as well as space for small and micro businesses. • Urban design: The application is supported in line with London Plan policy on urban design. • Heritage and views: The proposals would not negatively impact the settings of nearby heritage assets or strategic views. The application complies with London Plan policy on heritage and the LVMF. • Climate change: The scheme is broadly supported in strategic terms. Further commitment and information is required with regard to the on-site communal heating network and the scheme’s potential to connect to future district heat networks. • Transport: Planning obligations to address the impact on the Underground network, local cycling routes as well as a Deliveries and Servicing Plan and Travel Plan should be secured by s106 agreement. Conditions relating to a two-stage Construction Logistics Plan should also be secured.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Assistant Director – Planning 0207 983 4271 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Senior Manager – Development and Projects 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Shelley Gould, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4803 email [email protected] Matt Christie, Senior Strategic Planner, case officer 020 7983 4409 email [email protected]

page 10