Transcript
Committee. I'm going to start by asking colleagues around the table to introduce themselves, elected members of the committee to begin with, so I'm on my left here.
Councillor Bligh Hamdash, Highbury Ward. Councillor Nick Wayne, Canterbury Ward. Finn Cray, Councillor for Arsenal Ward. Paul Convery, Caledonian Ward. Claire Judge, for Canterbury Ward.
Councillor Ruth Hayes, for Clerkenwell Ward. Councillor Tricia Clarke, Tuffman Park Ward. Councillor Toby North, St Peterson, Canalside Ward. Thank you very much, and officers around the table, starting on my ron. Laura Avery, Legal Advisor.
All I do, are you coming to clerk? Gerry Hennessy, Planning Officer. Nat Baker, Assistant Director of Development Management.
Karen Sullivan, Director of Planning and Development.
Harriet Beattie, Team Lead of the Major Planning Applications Team.
And behind you, we also have...
Charlton Knight, Head of Development Management.
Caroline Wilson, Director of Inclusive Economy.
Fabrizio Matilana, Design and Conservation Deputy Manager.
Fabrizio Matilana, Design and Conservation Deputy Manager.
Thank you.
We have two apologies for absence this evening, from Councillor Ogunro and Councillor Nanda.
We have one substitute member, Councillor Wayne.
Thank you very much, Councillor Wayne, for stepping in this evening.
Do we have any declarations of interest from the committee on any of the items on the agenda tonight?
No? Okay. That's great. Thank you.
Just before we go to the order of business, I'm going to explain to you, for anyone who's here who hasn't previously been to a planning committee meeting in the town hall here, how we order the proceedings so that you can understand what's going on.
We're going to start each item with the case officer sitting here, giving us a brief summary of the application.
Some slides will appear on the screen up here, showing the key images of the scheme, and he will talk us through that.
Once you've heard that presentation, there's an opportunity for members of the committee to ask questions of clarification to officers about anything they've heard during the presentation.
Once you've done that, I will then ask if there is anybody present wishing to object to the application.
If that's the case, we can take up to three objectors to the application, and we generally give objectors up to three minutes each to speak.
Once we've done that, we will then move to the applicant, and we will take an account of how long we allowed objectors to speak,
and we will allot the same amount of time to the applicant.
And at that point, it's very helpful if the applicant can respond as closely as possible to the points made in objection,
as this helps the committee with our deliberations.
Once you've had those two rounds of comments, there's then a further opportunity for the committee to ask questions either of officers or the applicant,
or objectors about anything they've heard up to that point in the meeting.
After that, we move to deliberation, and we will debate the item in front of you and come to a conclusion to either allow, defer or refuse the application.
I'd just like to remind you that this is a council meeting held in public, and not a public meeting.
These are quasi-judicial proceedings, so all comments should be made through me as the chair.
Now, as chair of the committee, I have discretion to bring forward items with a greater degree of public interest,
and so I'm going to ask for a show of hands on who's here for each of the two items on the agenda.
So starting with item B1, 48 Chiswell Street, how many are here for that?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
And the other item, Tilyard, 18 to 20 Tilyard.
Tilyard first.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
13, thank you.
All right, so that's Tilyard first, yeah, thank you.
So we're actually going to take item 2 first.
So if we could switch around officers and switch the presentations, please.
Oh.
We've got some more screens now.
That's better.
Yeah.
Because we've got that guy speaking, so.
Oh, yes.
Yeah.
Right.
I would just add to your information that we have Mr Fogden online who's part of the applicant
team for this application.
So at the appropriate moment, we will ask you to speak.
I take it you can hear us, okay?
Can you hear us, Mr Fogden?
Yep.
Thank you.
Yes, we're good.
Can we have the presentation, please?
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Item B2 on the agenda is a planning application for development at 18 to 20 Tilyard Road involving...
Does this work?
You have to do the next slide, please.
Okay.
Yeah, next slide, please.
Thank you.
Involving the redevelopment of the site to provide a five-storey building, plus basement
and setback roof level plant for light industrial use at the ground floor, plus basement and setback
roof level plant for flexible research and development and light industrial uses on the upper floors.
Next slide, please.
So this is the two sites co-joined, 18 and 20 Tilyard Road, outlined in red, on the south side
of the street that wraps around the southern section of the Elsys, or the locally significant
industrial site.
Next slide, please.
Here's a bird's eye view looking south.
Looking south, you have the site outlined in red, and you have the artist studios just
behind it with the sawtooth roof.
The general kind of warehousing, commercial townscape around the Elsys, which is kind of
wedged between York Way on the right and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link on the left.
And then further to the right, you have the slightly higher rise buildings of the main lane
estate within Camden.
Next slide, please.
Just a couple of images from the street level.
Next slide, please.
This is 18 Tilyard Road, which has until recently been used by Rafa, as their offices, a cycling
brand.
Next slide, please.
And this is 20 Talyard Road, which has been used for SANS catering
as food manufacturing and food preparation and delivery.
Next slide, please.
So now to the proposal.
Here's the proposed front elevation, first in elevation form on the left,
then street-level view on the right.
And the primary street, northern elevation,
has been designed to maximise the active frontage to the street
with a light industrial floor space occupying the majority of the ground floor
and a prominent glazed double-height reception.
The light industrial space is expressed with the use of different materials
and colour from the flexible floor space on the upper floors.
Next slide, please.
This is the rear southern elevation.
It continues the modular principles of the front elevation,
but with a strong emphasis on the solid material, so less glazing.
And the fourth floor is set back and provides terrace planting
to reduce the massing visibility along Vale Royal
and from the Anthony Gormley Studios,
which you can see in the foreground on the right-hand side.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
So the proposed development would provide 1,298 square metres
of light industrial floor space at ground floor level,
which includes associated ancillary floor space at basement and roof level.
And the rest of the building, from first floor to fourth floor,
is a flexible R&D slash light industrial floor space,
totalling 5,794 square metres.
The proposed building has a main reception entrance.
Actually, back to the other side, sorry.
Thank you.
Access from Talyard Road, leading to a reception lobby and lift,
stair core, as well as a serviced entrance
and a generous separate entrance,
serving the light industrial space only.
The services core connects directly to the external delivery areas,
including the proposed inset loading bay.
So you see an inset loading bay, which is at the bottom of the image.
And then you also have a loading bay to the side of the site,
which is part of the neighbouring site, which I'll get onto in a bit.
Next slide, please.
The upper floors provide flexible research and development
and light industrial floor space, so it could be used for either,
as well as access to the two lift stair cores and bathroom toilet facilities,
along with other ancillary floor space.
The plans submitted here demonstrate how the floor space
could be subdivided into smaller units suitable for SMEs
and used for a combination of lab and write-up space.
So the image on the right is an example of how the floor space could be used
with a shaded write-up space and lab space shaded in different colours,
yellow and red.
Thank you.
The industrial floor space is considered to be a well-conceived
and integral part of the overall scheme,
with generous floor-to-ceiling heights,
which you can see here in the section,
and a conveniently located loading bay
and dedicated servicing, service and goods lift.
The section on screen provides an appreciation of the overall mix of uses
and the corresponding heights, floor-to-ceiling heights.
Next slide, please.
So the design of this front facade,
so the proposal is on the left,
and the design of the front facade has actually been refined
since this image was created,
but that provides an idea of the scale and the massing of the scheme
set against the neighbouring site, 22 to 23 Talyard Road,
which has got permission,
but is yet to be built out.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
In response to the council's neighbour notification letters,
three objections have been received,
raising issues of height, bulk, sense of enclosure,
mainly from the rear of the site,
overlooking daylight losses and construction impacts.
In terms of the impact on this building in the foreground,
15 to 23 Vale Royal,
here's a view from the rear showing a before and after verified view
of what the impacts would be from within the yard of the studios.
In terms of overlooking and loss of privacy,
this slide shows a section through the proposed building
and shows it relative to Anthony Gormley Studios
to get an understanding of at what point you can get overlooking
into the yards.
There's a number of measures that have been introduced
in order to reduce overlooking,
so there's a couple of windows that have been obscured
in the proposed building.
There's also landscaping behind the parapet at fourth floor level
to reduce the overlooking into the yard.
In terms of daylight and sunlight impacts,
there are no losses of either daylight or sunlight
to neighbouring residential properties.
There are, however, impacts on daylight to commercial properties,
in particular number four Tile Yard Studios,
which you can see just to the right of the building
and also to the artist studios to the rear,
so in the foreground.
So there are windows that are affected,
but the windows that are affected serve rooms
that are dual aspects,
so there are no unacceptable impacts
in terms of daylight distribution,
so the amount of the area within the room
that has visibility of the sky.
Next slide, please.
So there are a number of green
and landscaping interventions, as shown here,
which together achieve the urban greening factor
required for commercial buildings of 0.3.
Next slide, please.
So here's the delivery and servicing strategy,
which includes the provision of an inset loading bay
at the front,
and it also utilises the neighbouring sites
off-street delivery and servicing bay.
That site is also owned by the same applicant,
Codance,
and there's a Section 106 obligation
which ties the two sites together
to have a co-joined servicing delivery strategy.
Next slide, please.
So the proposal is considered to meet the aspirations
of relevant local plan policies,
in particular policies SP3, B2, B4, and B5,
and relevant London plan policies,
which support the protection and intensification
of the industrial area.
Development will also make a significant contribution
towards the Council's affordable workspace programme,
and it would deliver suitable employment
and training benefits,
and provide the kind of employment spaces
required to support the economic functions of the area.
The proposal is considered to involve a high-quality design
with more active frontage,
better relationship with the street,
and an improved public realm.
It's also not considered to result in any unacceptable impacts
on neighbouring residential amenity
or on the surrounding transport network.
Beyond the additional employment opportunities
resulting from the intensification from the site,
the off-site contribution towards affordable workspace,
which has been agreed with the affordable workspace team,
and the financial contribution towards employment
and training in the borough.
There is also a commitment to deliver
on an employment and training strategy,
which is discussed in more detail in the report.
The proposal also includes the intensification
of industrial uses,
which would be secured by condition
in the event of planning permission being granted.
Next slide, please.
Just a quick slide on whole-life carbon
and adaptive design.
Tutable justification has been provided
for the existing building's demolition.
GLA benchmark for whole-life carbon would be met.
Use of materials from recycled content
is also in line with policy,
in particular local plan policy S10.
And here's some headline figures
in terms of energy and sustainability.
So, 30.9% reduction in regulated carbon emissions,
which is below the required 35%,
but the shortfall is also offset
by a contribution of 96,900 towards...
Yeah, it's an offset contribution.
And there are further reductions
sought through condition 27
in the appendix one of the report.
Significant reduction
of upfront embodied carbon.
Maximized incorporation
of passive design measures.
A shared heating and cooling network
with a neighboring site.
And solar panels
and a green performance plan
to secure it
through the Section 106 agreement.
Next slide, please.
It's just a list of the planning obligations,
which are considered to be relevant
and meet the tests.
So, submission of an agreed
employment and training strategy.
The off-site...
The affordable workspace contribution
of 1.39 million.
Carbon offset contribution 96,000.
Employment and training contribution
and four construction placements.
Accessible transport contribution
and a Section 278 agreement
to ensure public realm improvements.
Next slide, please.
So, in terms of the planning balance,
there is a scheme underperforms
on regulated and total carbon emissions.
But further improvements
are sought through condition 27.
But in terms of benefits
in the overall planning balance,
there's a co-location of R&D floor space
with industrial,
which is supported by policy
intensification of industrial floor space.
Delivery of suitable employment
and training benefits,
increased employment at the site,
and high-quality new building
with well-considered design
and improved relationship
to the street,
new landscaping,
providing an enhanced public realm
and biodiversity improvements,
and no impacts
on neighboring residential amenity.
As such, the item
has been recommended for approval
subject to conditions set out
in Appendix 1
and the planning obligations
as detailed in the report.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
We've got questions from the committee.
Councillor North.
Just a quick one from me.
What is the existing use
at four tile yard studios?
The report just notes
it as a commercial property,
but what exactly is that use?
I just want to check
it's not sensitive.
As far as I understand,
it's used as offices.
Yeah.
Councillor Clark.
On the representation
from Thames Water,
it says,
Thames Water do not allow construction
within five meters
of mains water.
This development
is located
within five meters
of a strategic water main.
So, can you confirm
that that has been dealt with?
Can I ask another question, Chair?
Yes, of course you can,
but shall we get an answer
to that one first?
We'll get an answer to that, yeah.
Yeah, I can confirm
that's been dealt with.
We have a suitable condition
recommended by Thames Water
to address that,
which is condition six.
Just about the protected view
from Dartmouth Park
to St. Paul's.
Can you confirm
that this has been tested?
Yeah, that has been tested
and it's below
the viewing threshold.
Any further questions?
Councillor Hamdash.
Thank you.
So, we do have a demolition
of a building here
and we have a building
that doesn't meet
the embodied carbon targets
set out by the mayor.
So, we've got a benchmark
of 14,000 kilograms
and we're at 1481.
Could you let me know
what is driving that?
And also, there's discussion here
of opportunities
to reduce the embodied carbon
in that process.
Could you talk about
what discussions you've had
with the developers so far?
Yeah, so the upfront carbon
which is an element
of the embodied carbon
would be met
but it's the operational
carbon emissions
which is the prime reason
why they wouldn't,
why the total embodied carbon
would not be met
and the reason behind that
would appear to be
the energy intensive use
as a lab.
So, it's been modelled
as a lab slash hospital
with ventilation requirements
and lots of energy requirements
that you wouldn't necessarily need
for, for example, an office.
So, that's the main reason.
But we have a condition
which pushes them further
to investigate
how they can reduce that.
So, condition 32
and 31.
Great.
Because I remember
we've had conversations
about this before
where life science buildings
are kind of being judged
against office standards
that are quite different.
I mean, is it the council's opinion
that something like that
needs to be changed or reviewed
because it's difficult
to be judging, you know,
a very specific use
of a building
against perhaps
an unset or sat
of that three categories?
I mean, that's certainly
something we can look into.
Obviously, the London plan
is due for a renewal
which is where a lot
of this policy comes from
and we'll be commenting on that.
So, we'll absolutely be looking
into what's the relevant
means to do.
But at this point
we have to obviously assess
it against current policy.
So, could I just
ask a point of clarification?
You referred to the building
as being research
and development
but I thought I'd understood
that this was very specifically
targeted at life sciences uses.
Is there a difference
between R&D and life sciences?
Because I thought
I understood life sciences
was uniquely energy hungry
and also required more space.
Yeah, and just in planning terms
the planning categories
of class E, G, 1, 2 and 3
the number 2 is research
and development
and life science
would fit within that.
So, it's a bit of a blunt tool
I guess
but life science
and research and development
in planning terms
is seen as the same thing.
Okay, but I know
that in the past
sort of following on
from Councillor Hamdash's question
that we've struggled
to assess the energy demands
of the life sciences building
because they're so much higher
than other types of building
and I'm just wondering
whether we need to
specifically identify
as a life sciences building
as part of that assessment
of the energy consumption.
But you say that
the sort of subsets
of the use class order
doesn't enable us to do that.
No, I mean it's been modelled
as a life science slash hospital
so with the highest energy demand.
I think there are other
kind of research
and development uses
which would probably be modelled
in a different way
because they're lab enabled offices
for example.
So, life sciences
is the most demanding
of the options
and that's what this building
has been designed for.
Yeah.
I just note as well
that that's consistent
with our other decisions
on life sciences.
So, given it's life sciences
do we know what
the containment level is
for this building?
Yeah, the assumption
would be containment level two.
We have a condition
which deals with that
condition 36
which says
that we're limited
to containment level C
or condition
containment level two
unless an alternative
containment level
and associated management
procedures is agreed.
Thank you.
That's fine.
And also
I remain a little bit nervous
about the delivery
and servicing strategy
given that it's relying
on the roadway
that's actually part
of the adjoining site
but I heard you mentioned
in your presentation
that there's now
a joint 106
covering both sites.
Is that right?
Yeah.
So, there's a standalone
section 106
for this one
and then
there's a section 73
application
which is running
concurrently
for the other sites
to amend
their section 106
and both have
the same wording
around having
a joint delivery
and servicing plan.
Oh, right.
Okay.
So, the application
we're looking at now
refers to it
as joint delivery
and the adjoining site
is being altered
to effect that.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's much better
for you
because I thought
the last time
we discussed this
I thought we were
just going to have
to take it on trust
that there wasn't
a divergence
between the two sites.
So, that's great.
Thank you.
Any further questions
from the committee?
Councillor Convery.
Can I just ask
about number four
tile yard
which is a rectangular
shaped building
which has got windows
it's a ground
first and second floor
it's got windows
facing west
which would be
immediately abutting
this
and then
the south facing
is a blank wall
and then the east facing
is windows
first and second.
Now, you said
that that's dual aspect
are you saying
therefore
that that building
is completely
open plan?
The floor plans
we have for that building
I haven't been
in all of the rooms
but they suggest
that it's open plan
so you can
from one side
to the other
that all the windows
serve the same space.
Any further questions?
Councillor Clark.
Yeah, Chair
I just really want
to mention
the fact that
since I've been
on a planning committee
this is the first
where an applicant
is under flood risk management
rain water harvesting
is proposed
and a plant room
in the basement
the water will be used
to feed WCs
within the building
and so I just wanted to
you know
I'd like that
to have been
in this report
but it's welcome
to me.
Thank you.
Okay, that's noted
thank you very much.
At this point
do we have anyone here
who wishes to object
to this application?
I see one person.
Would you like
to come forward
to the desk?
Is there one there?
Anything that's
anywhere that's got
a microphone
will be fine.
Just press the right
hand button.
If you could tell us
who you are
and what you're interested
in the application.
My name is Rebecca Davis
I'm the studio director
for Anthony Gormley Studio.
I just want to take
a couple of moments
to reiterate a point
in one of our objections
to this planning application.
I represent the artist
Anthony Gormley
who has a studio complex
at 15 to 23 Vale Royal
which is directly behind
the proposed development.
We object to the proposed
color of the render
for the rear of the building.
Our concern arises
from the visual impact
this color would have
on the surroundings
particularly as viewed
from the artist's studio.
The studio designed
by the renowned architect
David Chipperfield
serves as a dedicated
creative space
that attracts visitors
from around the world
including museum curators
and cultural programmers.
Its aesthetic integrity
and the visual environment
it contributes to
are vital to its purpose
and reputation.
The property will remain
a cultural hub
well into the future
as the headquarters
for the foundation
which was set up
by Sir Anthony
and his wife
the artist Vick and Parsons.
It will become
a campus of activity
where a gallery function
would be ancillary
to the industrial
creative function
and education.
The proposed color
for the render
as currently specified
is notably jarring
and out of harmony
with the character
of the surrounding area.
This is particularly
significant due to the height
of the development
which places our studio
in direct visual relief
against the proposed building.
A color that is too dark
or overly bright
risks creating
this dark contrast
diminishing the cohesive
visual appeal
and detracting
from the studio's
creative atmosphere.
We respectfully request
that a lighter
more neutral render color
be considered
to mitigate
this visual impact.
We note that
the planning recommendations
include a review
of materials
by the council.
We urge that the render color
be included in this review
to ensure it complements
the surrounding environment
and aligns with the broader
aesthetic considerations
of the area.
For clarity
our objection is only
in relation to the render
at the rear of the building.
We have no comment
on the front.
I thank the councillors
for considering our concerns
and trust that a thoughtful
resolution can be reached
to preserve the creative
and cultural value
of our space.
Thank you.
Does anyone else
wish to object?
In which case
we turn to the applicant.
Do we have the applicant here?
So we'll give you
three minutes
if you could
do you mind
switching off?
Thank you.
You've got
three minutes
and if you could
respond to that particular point
and any other points
you want to make.
Okay thank you.
My name is Anna
from David Miller Architects.
So we have been
through several meetings
with Anthony Golmi Studios
and had really productive
I think conversations
with them all.
We have been
looked at various
different material palettes
which are within our
design and access statement.
We've looked at neutral colours.
We've looked at
kind of
concrete
sandstone
white
precast colours
along with
the terracotta colour
that you've seen
on the visuals
this evening.
We feel that
the earthy tones
and we're not
proposing something
that is very bright
the earthy terracotta colours
give that contemporary
nod to the
tile yard use
of the area
and also
we think that it
provides a
complementary contrast
to the Golmi Studios
but we totally
understand your point
and what we've
looked at
is the kind of
ground floor area
that they are
going to be
in most contact with
at the back of the
elevation to be
white brick slips
so that sort of
helps that immediate
contact they have
with our building
and the other
I suppose point to mention
is that the
conditions that
we've seen so far
include a colour
material condition
within it
so that would be
looked at in further
detail through that
condition.
Done.
Thank you.
Committee have we
got any further
questions?
Councillor Convery.
I'll just press
the applicant on
I mean I hope
I hope you haven't
reached terracotta
because of the name
tile yard
when one looks at
the predominant
palette of materials
in and around
the now rapidly
developing LSIS
it is either
very very light
coloured
industrial kind
of
facings
or it's
which is sort of
historic
or it is
light yellow brick
much of
Taliard 4 and 4A
is very light brick
or the Big Egg
storage building
which has a
very very
low coloured
you know
a light
facing
or the
rolling rock
yard building
which equally
you know
has a sort of
slightly silvered
grey
so the predominant
colouring in the area
very definitely isn't
anything like
terracotta
it is
you know
that
for the
Gawley studio
too
explicitly
I mean
it's not dark
the prevailing palette
is light
or light brick
so I don't understand
why you have
given you do have
some choices here
why you've gone
for a sort of
darkish
terracotta
with
I think
a very very
contrasting
negatively
contrasting
effect
throughout the
whole
of the area
can you explain
a little more
please
just before
you answer
that question
I have a
background question
to what
Councillor Converse
just asked
in that
I thought
we were told
during the
presentation
that the
facing material
is going to be
terracotta
the objector
referred to
render
and now
I think
we heard
the architect
make a reference
to brick slips
so could you
at the same time
as talking about
colours
could you talk
about which
material they're
actually using
yes so it is
a very limited
palette on the
building
and so the
predominant
material is
precast concrete
so that's what
wraps a skin
around the upper
floors so from
first floor upwards
it's precast concrete
and that's where
the terracotta
colouring comes in
on the ground floor
you've got a
different treatment
because we're
trying to emphasise
the light industrial
space so at the
rear of the building
on the ground floor
that's where the
white brick slit
clips come in
and then at the
front of the building
you've got a
predominant glazed
elevation on the
ground floor
so the terracotta
finish is the
precast concrete
from the first
floor upwards
in terms of how
we came about
that particular
material
like I said
we have tested
a wide range
of different materials
and we also analysed
the existing context
which is very mixed
there are red bricks
there are yellow
bricks
there are various
different
sort of more
industrial
cladding
in the immediate
vicinity of the
building as well
the idea
behind it
was really
something that we
looked at
in
expressing
the
5 to 10
Brandon Road
and 4 Brandon Road
which are also part
of the
Kedan's wider
campus
which brought in
an element of
kind of a mixed
brick
red brick
and yellow brick
and it's sort of
to complement
but to also provide
a slightly different
identity
but I think in terms
of the front
elevation
you know
its majority
is glazed
it's the back
area which has
a slightly
larger solid
proportion to it
it's not a
reference directly
to tiles
that was sort
of just
something
that we
made a comment
about
but it is
really just
in terms of
looking at
the wider
area
we felt that
the issue
potentially
with a lighter
colour
was the
weathering
element
and you know
the longevity
of you know
how the building
will look
going forward
we didn't want
to have issues
with staining
and weathering
due to the
production of
the base
and the terracotta
wouldn't have
that same effect
that the white
or concrete
effect colour
would have
to come back
to you on
my question
you're now
talking about
a different
material again
from the three
that I referred
to earlier
on in the
meeting
what is
planning officers
understanding
of what the
material is
the predominant
material is
precast concrete
as the architect
said
it's just the
terracotta
refers just to
the colour scheme
right
okay
so you're putting
some kind of
pigment in the
concrete then
is that
is that
how you're doing
well yeah
precast concrete
paneling
which is
brought to
site as a
kind of
precast unit
no matter what
would have a
colouring to it
it's never a
natural tone
it always is
pigmented
so you have a
range of colours
that you could
go forward with
and that is
why the colouring
has been conditioned
so that that
conversation can
happen
or continue
yeah
okay so
the panel
is not
precast concrete
and tables
of the building
they're face
fix panels
it's a
cladding system
yeah
yes
okay
well I think
I'm to
discharge of
conditions
I think
council
oh yeah
I just would
like to
say I'm
pleased with
the applicants
policy of
recycling the
rainwater
harvested rainwater
and feeding
it into the
WCs
I think it's
a first
and really
welcome it
as for
I just want
to ask you
about
you said
you've been
talking to
the studios
and you've
got a good
rapport
so I can't
understand how
that could have
been the case
if you've
come up
with terracotta
because that
is the thing
they don't
want
I understand
your question
I think
we have
taken quite
a lot of
steps to
try and
sort of
mitigate some
of the
concerns that
Anthony
Colmy Studios
had throughout
the design
these include
things to do
with the
massing
so we
completely
changed that
rear elevation
it had a
little projection
which we've
taken back
and then we've
also stepped
back the
fourth floor
so that we
can provide
that terrace
area which
has then
kind of
helped reduce
the massing
for the
building
and various
other kind
of measures
that we've
taken to
prevent
overlooking
into Anthony
Colmy's
studio
and sort
of trying
to show
how his
building would
interact with
our building
through various
renders
and views
so the
conversation
hasn't just
been about
colour
it's been
about a
wide
spectrum
of things
that we've
tried to
work together
to resolve
and I think
this is just
the final
sticking point
thank you
so we've
discussed how
close you
are to
the benchmark
and whole
life carbon
and despite
the fact that
it is a
life sciences
building
if we
walked away
with an
approval
today
what kind
of work
do you
think you
might be
able to
do to
get closer
to that
benchmark
if any
hi everyone
Tom Spurrier
from
Hawley
energy and
sustainability
consultants on
the project
so naturally
in the next
stage of
design
as things
progress
the key
things we
would look
at would
be
the specifics
around
the concrete
procurement
and other
materials to
make sure
the lowest
carbon
materials were
specified
looking at
things like
cement
replacement
then the
mix
as a key
kind of
reduction
measure
and really
a detailed
exercise
looking through
other aspects
recycled content
of the facade
in terms of
aluminium
and glass
and kind of
doing a detailed
exercise through
the next
stages of
design
thank you
also in the
presentation we
saw that there's
different ways that
the floors might be
set up so you
might have
multiple providers
or one floor
set out
might that have
any impact on
your energy
use
might more
people
it might be
if you're having
more and more
space given to
lab rather than
writing up space
might that get you
further away from
the energy
impact
yeah so
obviously the
final kind of
tenant usage
of those
spaces will
obviously impact
the end
energy usage
so the
partel
calculations
that are fed
into the energy
strategy are based
on those fixed
assumptions
and that's what we
have to work
within
within our
operational energy
assessment we did
look at different
scenarios
and tested
the sensitivity
to those
so yes
the final
energy usage
in practice
is undoubtedly
affected by the
end tenants
to some extent
yes
also with the
building there's
the natural
despite the fact
it could be
sort of one
tenant two
tenants or
multiple tenants
on the floor
plate
there is a
sort of
natural limit
if you like
to how far
that building
can be
sort of
lab or
sort of
or
sort of
writing space
the building
is designed
to be sort
of
50-50
where the
design margin
to push
out to 60%
labs
40%
offices
so
almost
not
I'll say
regardless
but even
if you had
one or two
tenants on the
floor plates
you need a
percentage of
what would
there be
a lab
it's still
kind of
limited
pretty much
that sort
of 50-60%
range
you're not
going to
have
the ability
to have
the entire
building
operating as
a lab
and therefore
having much
higher energy
consumption
great that's
actually really
helpful to my
follow-up
question
planning
so
we have
a certain
amount
of money
calculated
as carbon
offset
to kind
of bridge
that energy
gap
is that
calculated
against 50%
lab space
60%
lab space
is there
any chance
that in
five years
time we'll
have a lot
of tenants
in there
and they'll
have got
away with
paying a lot
less than
they should
have
I think we'll
build that
into the
section 106
agreement
and we
certainly did
in the
previous scheme
before Brandon
Rhodes
and that's
what we
would do
on this
one
so if
it does
perform
worse
because there's
more labs
and higher
energy usage
then the
contribution
will go up
in which
case we
move to
deliberation
on this
we seem
to have
a very
policy
compliant
scheme
here
this one
point
about
energy
can clearly
be addressed
depending
on what
the calculations
show
and there
is another
round of
reviews
on the
finishes
particularly
to the
rear elevation
of the
building
where it
sounds as
though we
could
reasonably
accommodate
the
Gormley
Studios
wishes
without
over
impacting
the design
of the
building
so other
than that
I can't
see there's
a great
deal at
issue here
any members
of the
committee
like to
make
for any
observations
Councillor
Clark
I'd just
like to
clarify
what you've
said
there
are you
saying
that there
is a
review
of the
colour
are we
putting that
in the
deliberations
is that
part of
the
it's already
conditioned
so we're
asking the
review to
come out
with something
that's more
favourable
to the
neighbours
we'll
we'll
look at
the study
that they
submit as
part of
condition
three
and make
an
assessment
on that
internally
at council
officer level
can we ask
for something
that's more
favourable
to the
neighbours
it's on
the same
point
so yes
without
saying
I'm not
that bothered
about the
gormleys
I am
but what
I'm actually
more concerned
about is
what you'll
see here
and it
might be
helpful to
put this
back up
on the
screen
particularly
this brick
colour
is what
practically
the entire
area
looks like
and that's
what I think
it ought to be
matching a little
bit more closely
so a lighter
sort of
yellow brick
and that
that therefore
be a clear
recommendation
in relation
to condition
three E
which would
condition
precast
concrete
slabs
that face
the building
that there
be a colour
which is more
sympathetic
to the yellow
brick
which is
predominates
in the rest
of the area
not least
numbers 22
to 23
tile yard
road
not yet built
of course
but will be
built
to look
like that
something that
may help
if members
are worried
about
ensuring
that this
is the
right colour
and would
like to
look at it
we could
always write
into the
condition
in consultation
with the
chair
or the
committee
if that
would help
my thought
was actually
to consult
with the
Gormley
studio
we don't
give them
the power
of decision
but take
their comments
is that
is he happy
with that
yeah
thank you
and so
that
we'll
assuming
we're moving
to approval
that
we'll amend
that condition
appropriately
any other
comments
all in favour
thank you
thank you
very much
application
is approved
we now
move to
item B1
on the
agenda
Mr Fogton
thanks for
your
attendance
items
concluded
now
so you
can
switch off
thank you
very much
chair I
assume
is
neither
myself
nor
councillor
in terms
of
formalities
application
since we're
revisiting
and I
want to be
considered
councillors
Wayne
and Clark
weren't
present
for those
deliberations
therefore not
party to
them
it was
probably
most
appropriate
unless you're
particularly
interested in
staying
you're free
to go
now
so thank
you very
much
for your
help
this evening
so we
heard this
application
last month
and the
committee
came to
the
conclusion
that we
wanted to
defer this
on three
points
which the
officer can
go over
with you
but basically
we got to
a point
where we
considered
all aspects
of the
application
there were
three points
that were
concerning
us
on a
deferral
such as
this
the best
use of
the committee's
time is
to generally
focus on
the reasons
for deferral
and whether
we think
those have
been adequately
met to
move us
towards an
approval
so if we
can focus
on those
three reasons
both in the
presentation
and in
discussion as
well
I think
that's the
most effective
way to deal
with it
thank you
can we have
the presentation
please
thank you
chair
just before
I begin
I just want
to say
that we've
had one
additional
representation
received
this comes
from a
previous
objector
and they've
raised
no new
considerations
this application
relates to the
existing building
at the corner
of Chisworth
Street and
Whitecrest
Street
the application
proposes in the
extension and
refurbishment of
48 Chisworth
Street to provide
over 5,000 square
metres of
additional office
floor space
which will be
achieved by
infilling the
existing atrium
introducing
additional massing
and through an
upward extension
at roof level
this application
was previously
presented at
committee in
November where
following deliberation
members deferred the
item in order to
allow for further
consideration of the
affordable workspace
offer to allow for
further consideration of
the building height and
to allow for further
development and
clarification of that
of the applicants
proposed contribution
towards social value
generating programs
in response to
comments provided by
members at the
November planning
committee further
consideration has been
given to the
applicant's affordable
workspace proposals
the applicant has
worked closely with
officers to review
alternative locations
for the on-site
provision of affordable
workspace following a
review of the
originally proposed
basement level
affordable workspace
officers asked the
applicant to consider
whether workspace could
be provided at ground
level in the location
highlighted in purple
although a policy
compliant amount of
floor space could have
been provided in this
location the space
would be afforded very
limited daylight levels
furthermore access to
this space would be
provided in one of two
ways first access
option would be
directly from Sutton
Way which is considered
undesirable due to its
poor location and
second access option
would be through the
main lobby which would
require future
occupiers to pay
significantly higher
service fees which
would not be
appropriate for
affordable workspace
this is also the
reason that on-site
provision of affordable
workspace at upper
floors has not been
pursued
the applicant suggested
that the proposed
retail unit could be
given over to
affordable workspace
this space benefits
from good levels of
daylight and a prominent
entrance on White
Cross Street however
this space would be
smaller than required by
policy and a
contribution for the
shortfall would be
necessary
the council's
inclusive economy team
has advised that a
site of this size would
be difficult to let
and it's considered that
an active use such as
retail would be more
appropriate in this
location following this
review the inclusive
economy team continues to
express a clear
preference for an off-site
contribution this three
million pound contribution
has been calculated in
accordance with the
formula set out in policy
shown here using an
expected rental value for
the entire development
rather than just the
basement space
overall while the lack of
on-site affordable
workspace is regrettable the
proposal is compliant with
local policy relating to
affordable workspace
the existing building's
highest point is just
under 32 metres in height
making it an existing
tall building the
proposed extension works
would result in an
overall height increase
of 6.13 metres to just
under 38 metres this
drawing shows the
existing building line in
red on top of the
proposed development
despite this being an
existing tall building
the site is not
allocated as being
appropriate for tall
buildings the proposals
therefore represent a
departure from the
development plan and the
application has been
advertised as such
notwithstanding the
non-compliance with part
b of policy dh3 the
visual functional and
environmental impacts of
the proposals have been
assessed against the
criteria set out in part
e of the policy and found
acceptable this of course
with the gla's assessment
of the proposal against
london plan d9
it should be noted that a
scheme that does not
comply with the
development plan policy
does not necessarily give
rise to a scheme that's in
breach of the development
plan provided that when
taken as a whole the
scheme can be seen to
support the aims and
objectives of the
development plan the
developments proposed
to uplift in office floor
space would make a
meaningful contribution
to the identified need
for office space in the
borough and would
fulfil the site allocation
it's therefore considered
that in land use terms
the development supports
the aims and objectives
of the development plan
furthermore the retention
of the majority of the
existing structure results
in a very good whole life
carbon score which is 18%
below the gla's benchmark
values considering the
council's declared climate
emergency and aspirations
to ensure the borough is
net zero by 2030 proposals
to minimise developments
in bodied carbon is
supported it's noted that
the proposed design has
developed in response to
the drp's comment
which advised that local
views from sundown core
and chiswell street are
of most concern this has
been achieved by setting
back up floors to
minimise visibility above
the listed buildings and
by setting back the
southeast corner behind
the existing building line
and by introducing a
sympathetic brown
glazed brick the
proposed developments
non-compliance with the
tall building policy and
the minor level of less
than substantial harm
continue to weigh against
the proposals in the
planning balance however
the development proposes a
high quality of
architecture which would
result in a building that
is considerably more
sympathetic to the
neighbouring heritage
assets than the existing
the building's design
height and massing
therefore continue to be
acceptable on balance
in response to members
comments made at
november committee the
applicant has provided a
draft local first social
value plan which sets out
how a strong package of
social value benefits
would be delivered from
the site through a
sustained relationship
with the council
the local first social
value plan would support
the delivery of a number
of programs aimed at
promoting engagement
between businesses
occupying the development
and local communities
this would create
employment opportunities
for local residents and
support local enterprise
it's anticipated that
these programs would
generate over 1.8
million pounds in social
value over the course of
three year implementation
period
the local first social
value plan sets out a
commitment to ensuring
that social value resulting
from the implementation of
the plan is generated from
the site
the applicant is committed
to developing a platform
which would encourage
future occupiers to feed
into the delivery of the
social value activities
and it's confirmed that
they would facilitate
introductions between
future occupiers and the
council
tenant businesses for
proactive engagement in
the delivery of the
social value plan has
the potential to generate
additional social value
over and beyond the
predicted 1.8 million
the submitted draft
first local first social
value plan would be
secured through the
local the legal agreement
and it's recommended that
a final version of the
plan is secured close to
the time of completion
to ensure that the plan is
able to respond to the
nature of tenant
businesses which is not
yet known
the updated heads of
terms would also require
world councillors and the
executive member for
inclusive economy and jobs
to be consulted in the
approval of the final plan
to ensure that funding is
in place for the
delivery of the local
first social value plan
activities 1 million and
80 thousand pounds would
be secured over three
years
on balance although the
development proposes a
tall building on a site
with no allocation would
cause less than
substantial harm to
heritage assets and would
have neighbouring
immunity impacts overall
it's considered that the
scheme is acceptable
the development fulfills a
site allocation providing
an intensification of
business floor space and
retains the existing
structure which has
considerable sustainability
benefits improved
architecture results in a
better relationship with
the surrounding townscape
and by reducing the
footprint of the
southwest corner creates a
larger area of public
realm the removal of all
car parking spaces and the
provision of a larger
than policy compliant number
of cycle spaces has
considerable sustainable
transport benefits and
finally the information
provided within the social
value plan demonstrates how
around 1.8 million pounds
of social value would be
generated locally to the
development this extra
information allows additional
weight to be assigned to this
benefit for these reasons it
is recommended that the
applicant application be
approved subject to
conditions and the section 106
agreement thank you
thank you committee we've got any
questions of officers
thank you very much could you
just I think on the slides what
was shown with the three year
program could you just confirm
what happens at the end of that
period so the social value plan
that's been said the draft social
value plan that's been submitted
includes a commitment from the
applicant to preparing a ready-made
ESG platform that tenant
businesses would be able to sign up
to it's anticipated that that could
last longer than the payment but the
payment set schedule set out here is to
fund the delivery of the activities set
out here over three years these are
existing council programs and the
council the funding sort of supports the
council's delivery of these
council north mindful there's no changes
to the height and massing of the
proposal but could you just remind
members of the committee of the
sunlight daylight impact to the
proposal particularly on immediately
neighboring properties on the
Whitbread estate yeah absolutely
so this is the summary page from the
previous presentation across the all of
the the properties that have been
measured there's 15 residential rooms
would see reductions beyond BRE and
BSC and that three residential rooms
would see reductions beyond the BRE
in terms of no skyline for the
Whitbread estate you've got and eight
buildings that eight rooms would fail
the BSC and all of the rooms here
listed would fail the skyline and have
the applicant submitted modeling of what a
policy compliance scheme in terms of
sunlight and daylight would look like in
terms of height and massing no
any further questions council chiefs
can you go back to the the before page
14 or 13 was it which was the oh I think
no stop I stopped there that one listen yes
it says corporate volunteering schemes in
local areas local procurement etc London
living what yeah that's okay but I mean we
need to get at least that or more than
that I've seen volunteering schemes you
know it's great for those who work in the
area oh they have a great old fun they turn
up to the parks and they do a bit of
gardening and cut up this and the other
oh that's all terrific you know it needs
to be done properly I'm a bit tired of of
having all these wonderful schemes which
benefit the people who are earning loads
of money so I'm going to be a bit of a
socialist here whether you like it or not
but I want jobs for my people the local
residents a lot of them have been on the
dial they go up the Joel office and they get
soddled out of the DHSS so I want I want
more I'd like real proper jobs for the
residents for our people our residents and
not just some high class oh yeah nice
lovely old volunteering coming to the
local park yeah you do a bit of great I'd
like you to be really serious about this
and not just sorry patronize me being some
working class oik from Islington and just
just to clarify on the point at the minute
the social value plans in draft and it's
been worked collaboratively between the
applicant and with ourselves and our
colleagues in the inclusive economy team
it is in draft a final version will have
to be written up as part of the section
106 agreement which will look at who the
actual eventual occupier is and it also
has to go past the local ward councillors
and our executive member for inclusive
economy so we'll ensure that this is
delivering benefits directly into that
local population
can we not have conversations between
members of the committee please
council do you want to follow on from
that or not do you want to ask a
follow-on question
I just hope that that we are listened to
and that we give really good quality here
because because it isn't just you know
fobbing off people who are signing on
the dole or whatever
if you keep that point for deliberation
and we get there that would be good
council Craig
probably saying this is the wrong point
but they do list on the application
jobs and quite a lot of jobs actually
that was the point I was going to say
so thank you very much councillor
that those on that screen is in addition
to the other elements that are in the
social value plan listed in the section 106
so the third bullet point in green is
employment program with a focus on
enabling the sleep and residents to
enter to meaningful employment
and we're only setting this out in principle
so any further questions
does anybody here wish to object to this application
two objectives
in which case you can have three minutes each
to express your objections
it's up to you who wants to go first
if you could just tell us who you are
and your interest in the application
that always helps
thank you
my name is Marco Siano
and I am the resident of Flat 6 Shire House
located on Whitbread Estate
on the only northeast side of the proposed development
I have registered to speak tonight
to strongly object to the application
my objection is based on two key reasons
the reduction of privacy
and significant loss of daylight and sunlight
in our amenity spaces
at the previous meeting to which I attended
this application was deferred
with specific conditions
one of which was to address the issue
of adding two more floors
to a tall building in a position
which is not suitable for development
of tall buildings
this is surprisingly not addressed
and only this morning
I have found from the addendum
that this is deliberate
apparently it's not necessarily a policy breach
if other policies are in favour of the scheme
but it can be
it remains a tall building
in a position not suitable
for this type of buildings
due to essentially redissidential nature
of its surrounding
as a result of the addition of two floors
more windows would be added
even on the existing floors
on the eastern elevation
directly facing the private terraces
balconies and windows
on the south side of Shire House
the existing building was designed
with a staggered north side
a possibly deliberate feature
to minimise overlooking into nearby
private and communal amenity spaces
this important design consideration
has been entirely ignored
in the new proposal
regarding daylight
the study acknowledges
that certain windows
will fall below BID compliance standards
the suggestion that these affected windows
serve bedrooms
and therefore the impact
is less significant
is not a sufficient justification
this is especially concerning
if other rooms in the home
such as living space
are already poorly lit
and it indicates little regard
to the local residents
when it comes to sunlight
it is undeniable
that the development's
overwhelming proximity
and its position southwest
of Shire House
will cause a significant reduction
in sunlight
reaching private community
amenity spaces
the daylight report notes
that some amenity areas
will become BID compliant
within a month from March 21st
meaning April 21st
however this also means
that the stop being BID compliant
from August 21st
leading to a loss of direct sunlight
during late summer
and early autumn
while one might not be motivated
to sit outside
in colder months
like winter or early spring
the same cannot be said
for late summer
and early autumn
when outdoor spaces
are still actively used
in conclusion
I urge the committee
to reject this application
in the current form
it disregards prior condition
compromises the privacy
and daylight of existing residents
and fails to adequately assess
and mitigate its impact
thank you
thank you
and you sir
okay
my name is Jan Mark Petroschka
I'm from the Barbican
and Gordon Lane
Neighbourhood Forum
and the Barbican Association
and resident of
Ben Johnson House
we spoke at the last committee
it was about
the impact
of the proposed development
from the roof terraces
22 metres away
from our residencies
impact of noise
and also of light
light pollution
from the offices
and we have to deal
with that a lot
in the city
where we are very close
to a lot of offices
those things can be
very easily addressed
and I can just confirm
that with the applicant
we have agreed
that the overlooking
from the roof terraces
can be addressed
at detailed design stage
and I wish that
to be conditioned
should the site
be sold on
we have also agreed
that the automatic blinds
that we asked for
will be delivered
in the first section
of the building
which is opposite
the bedrooms directly
so I thank
the applicants team
for being so neighbourly
and I wish that
the planning authority
would have been
equally neighbourly
in the consultation
and consideration
of our comments
but we've made
since February
continuously
thank you
thank you
so I think we move
to the applicant team
now
so there's a number
of points there
about daylight
overlooking
and daylight
and the impact
of the increased
height of the building
on the daylight
to the adjoining buildings
and I think
the second objective
comments can probably
be dealt with
by the committee
in terms of
amending conditions
as and when
we get to that point
so you've got
up to five minutes
to address us
on those points
and any other points
you want to make
thank you chair
and thank you
for the opportunity
to address the concerns
of the committee
and our neighbours
as you mentioned
we've heard a repeat
of the request
for detailed conditions
and we're happy
to work with officers
to get this element
right in respect
of acoustics
going above
and beyond policy
in this area
in terms of how
to best manage
hours of use
of terracing
light spill
and landscaping design
and we've been working
with neighbouring residents
to agree a form of words
that they're now
comfortable with
in respect
of the impact
to Islington residents
to the north
of the scheme
this has been central
to how our design
has evolved
through years
of pre-app engagement
and further still
in the year
since submission
following the members
forum in the summer
significant chunks
of the building
at the rear
have been removed
and the principal
north facing windows
have been reduced
from a width
of several metres
in the existing condition
to just 35 centimetres
with the complete intent
to minimise overlooking
and that massing reduction
since members forum
again has been
purely designed
to reduce any impacts
to the north
at the last meeting
three main issues
were flagged
as unresolved
since then
we've worked extensively
with Islington's
inclusive economy team
on a detailed
local first
social value plan
which I really hope
now gives comfort
to members
that the outcomes
will be hugely significant
in the context
of this refurbishment
and extension scheme
as well as being tangible
and successful
in meeting
the aspirations
of the borough
we're really excited
to fund
and deliver this plan
in collaboration
with Islington
and future tenants
of the proposed building
and for this
we'd like to thank
Caroline Wilson
and the case officer Joe
through this working relationship
the scheme has been evolved
since initial pre-app discussions
over three years ago
on the whole
without disagreement
where we do not agree
though
is on the quality
of the original
affordable workspace
offer at basement
this part of Bunhill
is a success story
of how good
below ground office space
can be
with generous light wells
and its own entrance
on White Cross Street
we're confident
that this space
would be easy to let
and a great space
to work in
this on-site offer
of 11%
is still on the table
if members would prefer
to see a physical space
or there is
the off-site payment
we understand
that members
are concerned
about the departure
from the development plan
in reference to height
the current building
is a tool building
if we were to
looking to demolish
and start again
this would be
a different conversation
but the lack
of a south side allocation
for a tool building
actually protects
the site
from demolition
and a tower proposal
coming forward
as does
the proximity
to our residential
and commercial neighbours
we are adding
some height
6 metres in total
with sensitive setbacks
in order to minimise
any impacts
to neighbouring
properties and amenities
but we have been
as restrained
and respectful
as possible
whilst meeting
the challenges
of retaining 75%
of the current building
and importantly
supporting the wider
refurbishment works
and significant
associated package
of public benefits
that could emerge
from this scheme
if permission
were to be granted
tonight
this building
will soon be empty
with no prospect
of new tenants
as the current building
is aimed
at a single occupier
and does no longer
meet the needs
of sustainability
in the modern world
we have done
all we can
to balance
the need
for investment
in this building
with minimising
any impacts
to the surrounding area
we have done this
through years
of design
and negotiation
with officers
members
and the DRP
and of course
local residents
and stakeholders
as before
the design team
and I are on hand
to answer any questions
you may have
thank you
members of the committee
if you've got questions
from officers
objectors
or the applicant
council north
question to the applicant
did you consider
any reduction
in height or massing
following our deliberations
at the last committee
we did review
go back over
the evolution
of the scheme
as I say
over several years
both pre
and post
submission
about a year ago
and I would
just draw attention
again
to the
massing reductions
that were made
post
the members forum
briefing
that we had
in the summer
and we had
some really
constructive feedback
following that meeting
with several of you
on the committee
and what we
decided
with officers
in conjunction
with officers
guidance
were the most
effective
setbacks
and massing
reductions to make
were those
that reduced impacts
and those
two key impacts
are
in respect
to amenity
to the north
and
in respect
to heritage
being in the setting
of the listed terrace
Georgian terrace
to the west
on Chiswell Street
and so
the two areas
where we've
set back
the building
are on
the nose
of the
south
west corner
adjacent
to that listed
terrace
gaining greater
pavement space
and more public
realm
on that key
junction
of Chiswell Street
and White Cross Street
and in the
north east corner
with a view
to minimising
immunity impacts
and any daylight
sunlight harm
we have also
considered
both
after that
meeting
and again
since
committee
the
potential
for a
setback
at the top
of the
building
on the
west elevation
fronting
Chiswell Street
and we've
tested that
in views
and
again
with
significant
engagement
with officers
we found
that actually
the building
form
was
worsened
in terms
of
architectural
form
whilst
bringing no
benefit
in terms
of
amenity
or
heritage
harm
thank you
and if I can
just follow
up on that
officers have
confirmed
that you
didn't submit
any modelling
looking at
what a
policy
compliant
scheme
might look
like
in terms
of
sunlight
and
daylight
is that
an exercise
you've done
yourself
roughly
what would
the impact
on overall
height and
massing
be
if you were
to deliver
a policy
compliant
scheme
in terms
of
the
BRE
guidance
I might
just
pass to
my
daylight
specialist
at
GIA
to answer
that
question
if that's
okay
so we
haven't
tested
we
retested
the scheme
with the
amendments
that
Sam just
discussed
there
and the
impacts to
neighbouring
properties
are actually
quite limited
if we look at
Shire House
to the immediate
north we have
five bedroom
windows
that are
seeing
deviations
from the
BRE
three of
those
see
minor
impacts
the
other
impacts
around the
site
again are
exceptionally
limited
and they're
generally
caused by
the balconies
and overhanging
walkways
that are a
feature of
those
buildings
as opposed
to the
proposed
development
itself
any further
questions
in the
committee
I have
one
myself
and this
is we're
going back
again to the
question of
the height
and massing
of the
building
clearly we've
got a
building here
that does
breach
our tall
building policy
in a far
more significant
way than
the existing
building
and there
is harm
but I
would suggest
to you
that this
harm falls
into two
categories
one is
about the
height
overall
which has
been increased
quite significantly
but also
the massing
which I
think you
have
acknowledged
yourselves
by introducing
setbacks to
some of the
elevations
now my
view of
the impact
of the
elevation
to
White Cross
Street
is borne
out by
the DRP's
comments
where they
say that
the top
floor looks
excessive
over sales
and dominates
the whole
scheme
my feelings
are quite
strongly
supportive
of that
point of
view
and this
is in
relation
just
specifically
to the
top
floor
and that
side
of the
building
and given
that you've
been happy
to introduce
setbacks
to other
elevations
of the
building
on the
top
floor
to do
a daylight
neighbourliness
and impact
on heritage
assets
my view
is strongly
that in
townscape
terms
the top
floor
on the
White Cross
Street
side
needs
setting back
as well
and I
believe that
suggestion
was put to
you and you
declined to
take it up
I'd be
interested to
know why
you didn't
want to
take that
up
I'd be
happy to
start and
perhaps pass
on to
officers to
follow up
if that's
okay but
you're right
that position
was put to
us both
following
members
forum and
again since
the last
committee and
we did test
a very similar
proposal following
members forum
and given
the refurbishment
and extension
nature of
this scheme
there's a
limited amount
of additional
area from
which to
support all
of the public
benefits that
we're proposing
to bring
forward
we prioritise
setbacks in
key areas
where at
members forum
the constructive
feedback was
that the key
concerns were
amenity harm to
the north and
heritage harm to
the south and
the setbacks that
we have made
were prioritised
over and above
the position on
White Cross
Street where
there's complete
BRE compliance
in respect of
the residential
opposite on
White Cross
Street so no
daylight sunlight
harm in the
same way and
you don't get
the view of the
heritage assets on
Chiswell Street
from the same
angle so that's
why those setbacks
that we elected
to take forward
post members forum
were prioritised
if I could just
follow up with
that the
committee at the
last meeting did
actually suggest
that the
possibility that
you would need
to remove an
entire floor from
the building to
make it acceptable
whereas when I
put the
suggestion having
seen the improved
benefits package
which was quite
persuasive in its
way I was
minded to suggest
what you could
call a compromise
with yourselves
instead of
removing a
floor simply
recessing that
floor as well
and as I said
to you previously
my suggestion is
based on streetscape
and amenity impacts
not BRE impacts
I can't improve on
the words from the
DRP saying that
elevation over
sales and dominates
the whole scheme
and that was the
reason why I
suggested you might
like to set that
elevation back as
well so again
maybe that point
wasn't made
clearly enough to
you but that's
the reason for
looking for it
and I would ask
you again whether
you'd be prepared
to consider that
as I said we did
test it I
wouldn't I would
be minded to ask
if officers wouldn't
mind commenting
as they were
involved in feeding
into that decision
and agreed that the
townscape impact
would be worsened
as a result of the
resulting form
thank you chair
absolutely we did
work with the
applicant in terms
of a number of
setback options
we went through
those with our
urban design
colleagues and in
looking at them
precisely that we
thought that those
forms were overly
complex didn't
complement the
building and
actually resulted
in greater harm
and the setback
itself that actually
aligns with some of
the discussions that
the DRP said in
terms of their
summary points of
looking at where
any movement
should take place
and the DRP
prioritised those
that would have
impacted listed
buildings and the
applicant has
moved elements to
reduce harm to
listed buildings and
concentrate on those
rather than this
specific corner but as
I say the assessment
we've made of the
they're not in front of
us today but the
designs we've looked at
we think worsen the
quality of the
building
so in terms of the
applicant's position
sorry I was just
going to add to
that there would be
further complexity in
that by setting back
that top floor you
would start to see
more of the plant
screen above and the
carbon also gets
worse in terms of a
more complex form
factor the embodied
carbon that's required
to insert transfer
structures for additional
setbacks actually gets
worse so those are two
additional points we
considered as well as
the architectural form
thank you in which
case we move to
deliberation on these
three points on
affordable workspace I
think we've been
reassured by our
affordable workspace team
that they are happy
with a commuted
payment in this
instance so I don't
think that that
matters settles itself
um I'm I'm very
pleased that we seem
to remove moving to
a very ill-defined
um social value plan
we've now got a very
clear one um and and
with um with the
amounts being offered
um actually in the
report as well which I
I thought it was very
important so I'm pleased
we've got that um and
I'm also um I can see
that a lot of work has
been done on this
building and it has
been tailored and
sculpted um to try and
respect the other
elevations based on other
comments made for
different reasons um but
there remains the
question of the fact that
we are in breach of our
tall buildings policy and
it's very much for the
committee to consider the
question of balance as to
whether whether what's
being offered um in
terms of the additional
um above policy
compliance um social value
plan is sufficient um to
deal with the breach of the
tall buildings policy um and
also whether the committee
has any views on on my
suggestion that um setting
back that um top elevation
on the white cross street
side might um actually move
the the building to a
position where where the
visual and townscape
impacts are mitigated
sufficiently to make it
acceptable um I'd be
interested to hear I'm very
interested to hear what
what members think about
this and where where you
individually feel we should
be going at this point
council north thank you
chair I think as a
committee we we were
crystal clear at the last
meeting um that we
thought something needed to
happen on higher massing
and nothing has so whilst I
think we can give a bit
more weight to the uh
community benefits now
they've been much better
defined and I welcome
that um I'm not sure
they've been so well
defined to outweigh the
harm that um a breach of
the tall buildings policy as
well as the sunlight and
daylight impacts um
the disbenefits that come
with those so I'm left
scratching my head
wondering where to go
with this obviously I
propose that we refuse
the application of the
previous committee I'm
minded to think maybe you
know they've done some
work on two out of three
of our reasons maybe a
further deferral would be
appropriate in order for
them to look again at the
higher massing given the
very clear steer that we're
giving them once again um
but I'd be welcome other
members views on that
thank you um councillor
Craig um yeah the concerns
for me are similar I mean
great that they've done
the other things but it's
well above our planning
agreements so too tall and
you know the impact on
individual families who
live in those flats that
are going to be impacted
is life-changing
potentially it's very
significant if you live in
a property and then
suddenly lose some of your
daylight even if it's a
small percentage it still
makes a difference um
um so I'm I'm feeling
inclined to decline
so you're inclined to
decline planning permission
based on the height
you're suggesting a refusal
yeah okay thank you
uh councillor jeeps
I think I think I would
agree with my colleagues as
well and I've had a look at
the the circle we've got to
improve social value well I'm
afraid I have to say that uh
that to my colleagues here
that the social value if
you're that impressed if
you're a listening to a
message I have seen this
first hand quite a number
of times that you we get
uh local first supply chain
opportunities uh in
consideration in various
jobs of Bunnell people in
catering might be washing up
somewhere cleaning
maintenance FM not sure
what that is security it's
the usual old stuff really
the usual fob off to to
people I would like really
good top quality jobs I
know I've said this before
but I'm getting a bit tired
of this okay so thanks very
much you know you can give
us a people who uh also
the tenant attendance at
job fairs etc and some
people think oh this is
great yeah well I'm not
really impressed it really
has to be good stuff it has
to be more than that there
were some really top jobs
down in the city people
earning thousands of pounds
if you could say to
someone okay you can do a
cleaning job that's less
than 20,000 a year or
something it's just not good
enough for people
councillor
can't be thank you Martin
um the three reasons for
deferral um I have to say
two of them were fairly
technical it's just that
there was information that
we'd expected which wasn't
provided and it's been
provided super the the third
principle the third reason for
deferral was the the height of
the building um and we have
made no progress at all there
um we we have a local plan
which identifies parts of the
borough um which are suitable
for tall buildings and there's
quite a lot of places that we
think are suitable for tall
buildings and places where we
don't and that's not because
we're anti-development the very
opposite we are a pro-development
borough here we're we are happy
to see employment um and
residential intensification on a
significant scale remembering
that we are the highest density
borough a local authority
anywhere in the country uh we
were the third for residential
for population we were the third
highest um employment intensity
um after Westminster and Camden
uh oh well the city of London
obviously that's not really a
proper local authority is it um we
have these policies for a good
reason and and the proposal in
front of us today is not policy
compliant it breaches policy dh3 in
the local plan to the extent that
the scale and massing is
excessive and there's loss of
daylight to an unacceptable degree
to the detriment of housing um to
the north of the site on the
Whitbread estate now it it is
possible um it is possible to
satisfy the 30 meter rule by
deciding that um it would not
result in an unacceptable visual
functional environmental impact
it's an extremely subjective test
and one which we very rarely use in
Islington we like we like things to
be fairly clear-cut and in my view
um for these principal reasons the
the application should be refused
thank you thank you thank you yes i've
been weighing really the the improvements
in the detail as as my colleague says
um and it is good to see uh those
commitments but it was very clear that
one of the three grounds uh for deferral
last time was the height and i'm like
colleagues disappointed that we haven't
seen movement on that um and i would
second councillor north's proposal um to
defer for revised proposals to come back
on that thank you i i must i'm i'm
sympathetic to councillor north's um
um position there we clearly are able to
negotiate um and achieve improvements
on this and and i think we should be
trying to um shape the top of the
building um so that it is less impactful
to the surrounding area both in terms of
daylight and in terms of urban design
um so so i i would also be supportive of
a um deferral um any further comments
from the committee okay we're staying
out of this from piazza land actually
um just a minute we're about to try on
well um i think um in this instance what
i'm going to do is ask those in favor of a
deferral to show first those in favor of a
deferral right okay the whole of the
committee so and the reason for deferral
is once again height and massing
so um if we could just do a bit more
work on that please um we are actually
keen to get you over the line but we
also want to um manage the townscape and
um policy impact to this application is
deferred again thank you um can i just ask
the committee to uh are we agreed on the
minutes of the previous meeting is the
so we're nearly at the end of the meeting
just one sorry this was um no i i i'd just
like to um thank um our um chair emeritus
um robert khan for attending the meeting
this evening thank you very much robert it's
nice to see you oh
um that there being no further business i
declare the meeting closed
here
is
here
you
here
it
it
it
it
it
it
it
it
it
it