planning report D&P/2924b/02 1 December 2014 130-154a Pentonville Road in the London Borough of Islington planning application no. P2014/1017/FUL Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. The proposal Mixed-use redevelopment ranging in height from 4 to 10-storeys comprising 3,879 sq.m. commercial floorspace for a car hire company, 873 sq.m. of office floorspace and 118 residential units. The applicant The applicant is Groveworld Rodney Street Ltd, and the architect is Pollard Thomas Edwards. Strategic issues Outstanding issues in relation to affordable housing, residential density, energy and transport have been resolved satisfactorily. The Council’s decision In this instance Islington Council has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That Islington Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 7 May 2014 the Mayor of London received documents from Islington Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building more than 30 metres high and is outside of the City of London.” 2 On 17 June 2014 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/2924b/01, and subsequently advised Islington Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are page 1 as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns, as detailed below. On 11 November 2014 Islington Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the application, and on 18 November 2014 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Islington Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Islington Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 1 December 2014 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 5 The application was originally presented to Islington’s planning committee on 22 July 2014 where it was refused against the officer recommendation. The grounds for refusal were based on the scheme failing to intensify the level of on-site employment uses alongside issues with regards to the financial viability assessment. Council officers brought the application back to Islington’s planning committee on 11 November 2014 for further consideration as a concern was raised that the reasons for refusal were not matters pursued by the Council in reaching its decision on a previous application (reference PDU/2924a) for the same site, which was broadly similar in scope to the current application. The decision from the previous application subsequently went to appeal and the appeal was dismissed. 6 The officer’s committee report of 22 July 2014 did not make it sufficiently clear that the proposed employment offer had not changed in any material way between the current application and the appeal application. In addition, there has been no change in material circumstances or the policy situation which would lead committee members to take a contrary view on what is broadly a similar scheme. The appeal decision is recognised as a material consideration in the determination of the current application as although it found that the scheme would impact negatively on the amenity of neighbouring properties, it did provide clear agreement to other issues including affordable housing/viability and the employment offer. 7 At the consultation stage Islington Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 67 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of the report could address these deficiencies: Affordable housing: The applicant is proposing to provide eleven family sized units for social rent, however details on the funding of social rented units have not been provided. The applicant has not assessed whether the proposal could provide more affordable units using the affordable rent product. As such is it not possible to ascertain whether the proposal complies with London Plan policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan. Density: In order to confirm whether the proposed density complies with policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan, clarification of the density is required. Urban design: The applicant has responded to concerns raised in relation to the previous iteration of the scheme, providing additional access points to residential cores. Issues raised in the inspector’s report in relation to overshadowing to Hill House have been successfully addressed through the massing reconfiguration of block E. This is welcomed. Energy: The applicant has broadly followed the energy hierarchy. Sufficient information has been provided to understand the proposals as a whole. The proposals are broadly acceptable; however, further information is required to ensure full compliance with the London Plan. The proposal includes living roofs, sustainable urban drainage and a page 2 rainwater harvesting system. As such the proposal complies with the climate change adaptation policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan. Transport: Further information is required as detailed in paragraphs 52 to 59 above to ensure the proposal complies with transport policies contained within chapter 3 of the London Plan. 8 In response to Stage One comments and further consultation with Council officers, further information has been provided as detailed below: Affordable housing 9 At the consultation stage, the applicant was advised to revisit the proposed tenure split of affordable housing provision and explore means of replacing the social rent offer with affordable rent to ascertain whether this would provide an improved affordable housing offer. In response, the applicant commissioned Gerald Eve to remodel the financial viability assessment based on affordable rent units, with rent set at 50% of market rent level. It was found that while this led to a degree of additional value, this was not deemed sufficient to enable additional affordable housing units to be provided. The amount of affordable provision therefore remains the same as commented on at the consultation stage and GLA officers recognise this as being the maximum reasonable amount, meeting the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.12. 10 As required in the Council’s SPD on planning obligations, a further financial viability appraisal should be submitted prior to the date of implementation of the development. It is understood that a clause has been included in the draft Section 106 agreement to secure this requirement. Density 11 The applicant has provided a revised calculation, taking into account the employment of floorspace, as requested at the consultation stage. This results in a net residential density of 1,004 habitable rooms per hectare, or 380 units per hectare. This sits within the prescribed range as defined in London Plan Table 3.3 for a development site in this highly accessible location and is supported from a strategic perspective. 12 As detailed at the initial consultation stage, the form and massing of the scheme has been amended to address concerns raised in the Inspector’s report in relation to the previous application. The amendments are supported from a strategic perspective and the proposals demonstrate a high quality of both detailed and contextual/townscape design, with key details conditioned by the Council. The scheme is therefore recognised as meeting the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’. Sustainable development/energy 13 At the initial consultation stage the applicant was requested to submit sample DER and TER sheets with full BRUKL sheets to support the projected reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. While it is disappointing this information has not been provided, it does not pose a significant strategic issue. 14 The applicant was advised to prioritise connection to the Euston Road district heating network, alongside providing evidence of correspondence with the network developer. This information has not been included in the application, however it is accepted that the district heating network is likely to be located too great a distance from the application site (820metres) and is of too small a scale to make an immediate connection feasible. It is also noted that a condition has been included requiring the development to be future proofed for connection. The Council is requested to include further detail in the wording of this condition (condition 20) to prioritise connection to existing networks before installing on-site combined heat and power (CHP). Notwithstanding this, the requirement to consider the use of temporary plant for an page 3 initial period until connection to a district heating network can be achieved, is addressed in the same condition.