Transcript

and I'll conclude, I'm a member for St Petersfield, our side ward and chair of the committee, I'm going to start by asking colleagues around the table to identify themselves, I'm going to start with the committee members, so I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, We have three apologies for actions this evening from the councillors, Clark, Agunro and Nanda, but we don't have any substitute members. Do you have any declarations of interest from the members of the committee? No, thank you. There is only one item on the agenda this evening, so there's no question about your business. Are we happy for the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed. Agreed, thank you. Just before we move to the one item on the agenda, in case there's anybody here who hasn't been to the meeting, the meeting of this sort before, I am going to brief, you can just go over the procedure. We will start with the case officer presenting the scheme to you, and it will appear on the screens here. And here, he will run through the scheme briefly and raise the detailed points that he wants to draw our attention to. There will be an opportunity for members of the committee then to ask any questions for clarification from officers. I will then inquire if anybody wishes to object to the application, and we will then hear any objections. We take a maximum of three objections, usually for a maximum of three minutes each speaking time, keep a note of the time that the objectors speak for, and offer the same amount of time to the applicant to respond to the objections. Once we've done that, there's an opportunity for members of the committee to ask questions of officers, applicant, or objectors to try and get further points to need clarifying. We then move to deliberating on the proposal, and we will decide whether to approve, defer, or refuse the application. So, I'll just remind you that this is a council meeting held in public, not a public meeting, and these are quasi-judicial proceedings. And so, any remarks need to be made through me as the chair of the committee. Can we hear the item, please? Oh, actually, what I will say before you start is that I imagine you mostly would be aware that this item has been deferred twice already for attention to further aspects of the scheme. Given that we have been over the rest of the scheme very thoroughly, I'm going to endeavour to try and keep us focused on the point two reasons for deferral. And I would ask that anybody who wishes to speak on the application try and respect that approach as well, as we don't want to revisit the entirety of the scheme again, but rather to see if we're satisfied with the specific aspects on which we deferred last time we heard this item. If you'd like to give me your presentation, please. Thank you, Chair. And just before I begin my presentation, I'd like to draw your attention to a typo in the published addendum report at paragraph 4.24. Sorry about this. We'll be a physical to the minute. So, yeah, paragraph 4.24 should read, It is therefore considered that these reductions in VSE would have been such a limited scale as to be unlikely to be perceptible to the occupants. Next slide, please. This application relates to the existing building at the corner of Chisworth Street and Wycross Street. Next slide, please. This application proposes the extension and refurbishment for Chisworth Street to provide over 5,000 square metres of additional floor space. This would be achieved by infilling the existing atrium, introducing additional massing, and by upwardly extending the building. Next slide, please. This application was previously presented to the committee in December, where members deferred the item in order to allow for further consideration of the building height and massing, and the resulting daylight and sunlight impacts to the Whitbread estate. Next slide, please. 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. Next slide, please. Following this application's deferral at Planning Committee, the applicant has proposed to revise massing, introducing a setback along Wycross Street at 6th and 7th floor level. This additional setback would pull the building in from the originally proposed building line by 1.7 metres at the southern end of the building and 2.6 metres at the northern end. The proposed massing change would result in a loss of 178 square metres of floor space. Next slide, please. By pulling in the upper floors further from the 5th floor parapet, the building height and massing would be less visible along Wycross Street. With the building already set behind the terrace buildings along Chiswell Street, it's considered that the full height of the building would now only be visible in longer views. As a result of the proposed setback, the development would appear similar to the existing building when viewed from street level. This further minimises the limited harm associated with the policy non-compliant building height. Next slide, please. Whilst the proposed setback is welcomed as a device which would minimise the appearance of height, the overall height of the development would not change. The proposals therefore continue to represent a departure from the development plan. Notwithstanding the non-compliance with local policy DH3, the visual, functional and environmental impacts of the proposals have been assessed against the criteria set out in the policy and have been found acceptable. This accords with the GLA's assessment of the proposal against London Plan D9. It's considered that the harm associated with the non-compliant height has been reduced through the introduction of the additional setback. Next slide, please. As noted by officers at December Planning Committee, a scheme which does not comply with the development plan policy does not necessarily give rise to a scheme that's unacceptable, provided that when taken as a whole, the scheme can be seen to support the development plan. The development's proposed uplift in office full space would make a meaningful contribution to the identified need for office space in the borough and would fulfil the site relocation, meeting the land use priorities of the development plan. Furthermore, the proposed development's very good whole life carbon score, which surpasses the GLA's aspirational benchmark values, would support the Council's environmental and sustainability targets. Next slide, please. In response to members' comments made at December Committee, further assessment of the daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposed development on the Wittbred Estate has been undertaken. Across the Wittbred Estate, 203 windows, which serve 136 habitable rooms, were assessed for daylight and sunlight impacts, with a total of 8 rooms experiencing BSE reductions and 13 rooms experiencing NSL reductions in excess of the BRE guidance. There would be no adverse impacts to the properties at Cooper House and no properties would experience adverse sunlight impacts. Next slide, please. The Wittbred Estate buildings feature a number of balconies, overhangs and large building projections. As confirmed in the BRE guidance, these architectural features can limit the level of light breaching windows and can make existing windows more susceptible to daylight and sunlight impacts. This is because, with light already limited, even a modest obstruction may result in a large relative impact on the VSE and on the area receiving direct sunlight. Next slide, please. As can be seen on this table, the existing VSE levels of the affected properties are very low, and although the relative daylight reductions would be over 20%, the absolute reductions would be no higher than 5.6%. Furthermore, all affected properties would retain a daylight distribution of over 52%, which is considered a good score. Next slide, please. Four external immunity spaces would experience overshadowing impacts, including one of the Wittbred Estate's shared immunity spaces. Whilst this is regrettable and considered to weigh against the proposal and the planning balance, it's noted that the applicant has made some massing changes to minimise overshadowing impacts to these spaces. Next slide, please. Whilst the proposed setback of the upper floors along Whitecroft Street would further limit the already limited harm resulting from the building hype, it's noted that the development would continue to fail to comply with local policy related to tall buildings, would cause less than substantial harm to heritage assets, and would have neighbouring immunity impacts. However, notwithstanding the identified harm, the development would result in a number of planning benefits. The development fulfils the site allocation, providing an intensification of business floor space, and retains the existing structure, which has considerable sustainability benefits. The 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 agreed social value plan would generate around £1.8 million in social value locally to the development. Taken together, it's considered that the aforementioned benefits would outweigh the harm caused by the development in the planning balance. Next slide, please. For these reasons, it's recommended the application be approved subject to conditions in the Section 106 agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from committee about that? I've got a couple myself. There's one particular amenity space which suffers 100% of sunlight called A4, but I think I saw that come up on the slide. It looked actually like a very small space, is it? Yeah. Could you just go back to it for a minute? It's back, I think it is. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. Thank you. So that does look like a very small little bit of area, doesn't it? Yeah. A4 would have 100% less. That's a private amenity space, somebody's garden. It's got, as existing, 30% of the area would be lit on the 31st of March. But as you can see, it comes into compliance on the 12th of April. So it would be, I think, about two weeks either side, just under two weeks either side of the compliance state. And it's, there is an area there as well as 22 square metres, whereas the larger spaces which aren't so impacted are 168, there's 230. And my other question is, obviously I'm pleased to see that the White House Street elevation has been moved back, but it's, I think you said that the part of it has actually been moved back by over two metres. Given there was probably the best part of a metre of roof, open flat roof in front of it before it was moved, that means it's probably nearly three metres of flat roof there. And there's some discussion in the document about it possibly being used as a roof terrace. Do we know if that's a proposal or not? So the applicant's provided updated floor plans, but they've not confirmed what they are intended to use their space for. So we've updated, as originally proposed, that area was landscaped fully. And it's likely that the applicant will continue to landscape that area because of their urban greening factor requirements. But we have updated condition 27 to require a confirmation of the location of all external immunity areas and to confirm that their location won't have an impact on neighbouring immunity. Right, I must admit, I'd be concerned about that particular area of flat roof being used as an immunity space, mainly because the parapet was presumably quite low and that you'd have to put guarding up to stop people from falling over the end of the building. And that would then add to the height of the parapet, which would be working against the whole principle of trying to shift that elevation back. So maybe we need to... Chair, if the committee were minded to approve the application and had concerns about that, there could be a motion to amend condition 27 to delegate wording to officers to restrict that area's access. Yes, and we could find appropriate wording, something on the western side, and we could find appropriate wording, something on the western side, and to restrict that, that was a motion that was seconded. Okay, fine, thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Cumbry. Because there's a very slight reduction in the overall floor space, you've recalculated the minimum affordable rock space contribution. Originally, the applicant was, okay, well, it originally came in at 3 million, it's now 2.875 million. I just wondered whether we might hold the applicant to 3 million. We've calculated the affordable work space in accordance with the off-site contribution formula that's set out in local policy. Sorry, that wasn't my question. My question was, can we hold the applicant to the originally offered 3 million, rather than recalculating to get them a lower number? David, Councillor Conway, I think that's a question you might have to ask the applicant when we get to that point. Would you advise there isn't a policy basis for it, Darren? Well, we often accept things which are more generous than policy. So, what we've done is we've recalculated downwards the affordable work space contribution, which would be the minimum expectation. That isn't the same thing. That's effectively saying, you offered us 3, but now we'll settle for less when we could be sticking at 3. I'll ask the applicant. One other question, without labouring on the point too much, but this is now the third time this application has come to the committee. Previous applications, we, particularly Martin, proposed setting back the upper story for good reason. We were assured this was impossible. It now turns out that it is possible. Just wondering how that's happened. So, we've worked with the applicant, and I don't think the word they said was it wasn't possible. It had significant cost implications, and it had structural implications that they've worked through, through the two iterations, and we've actually seen about three or four different iterations, and this one actually goes the furthest back of all of them. So, they've managed to work through that in the time that's been afforded to them. Any other questions? Is there anybody here that wishes to object to this application? No. In which case, we move to the applicant. I see several of you are ready to speak. Do you have a burning desire to say anything at the moment, or it's up to you if you want to say anything? Hi there, Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Yeah, I think, obviously, this is our third time back in front of you this evening, and we've been on a journey of this, and we've been trying to resolve the points as they've been raised and address those every time. The last point we certainly heard very, very clearly in December was about the mass on the roof, which was actually really helpful feedback. Just from our point of view, trying to appreciate, we've always been trying to juggle all the factors to get a balanced view of the scheme. You know, sustainability has been embedded in this scheme since day one, so any changes to massing do have a material impact on the embodied carbon. Actually, affording us time since the last committee to hear has given us the opportunity to go away, work with our engineers, under the messaging of the wish to really push that facade back. And we've actually found an optimised solution where the whole facade can sit back, doesn't make a material impact to the carbon. And we've actually got comfortable with it that it actually is better to the heritage instead of being more harmful, which we thought may be one of the initial concerns that we had. So we really have taken the points on board. We've appreciated the feedback. And I really hope today you can recognise the move we've made to try and resolve this successfully for you. Thank you. Well, my question to the applicant is, on the original application, we looked at 3 million for affordable work space, and now it's gone down to 2.875. I'm just wondering whether you've got a slightly better offer. I think, yeah, it's obviously a calculation which is driven by a formula and the slightly reduced floor space has dropped that back, 125,000. Can I just reflect on that for a second or how? Yeah, if there was a way to maybe come up slightly, but if you could meet us halfway on that. Meet us halfway, that seems fair. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions to the applicant? In which case, I think we move to deliberation on this scheme. I would like to just put the point to you about the question of the use of the, or not allowing the use of that stretch of flat roof looking onto White Cross Street as an immunity is problematic. So, are we happy, would we be happy to adapt Condition 27 to address that? Other than that, I would have said, I'm very pleased that we have actually managed to get some reshaping of the top two additional floors. And it sounds like the applicants found a way to do it quite effectively as well, which is, from an engineering perspective, which, so, that's probably a better outcome than they were in visiting as well. So, I think, you know, I think that we're all in a slightly better place now. There are only these two points, and I think that the daylight and sunlight aspects of it have been well discussed in the report, and particularly with regard to what appeared to me to be the worst numbers in the report was actually that tiny little 32 metres of space, which it does lose all of its sunlight on the 21st of March, but it gets it back up to its base. So, that was the worst number I could find. So, I think, on the whole, the daylight and sunlight counts as well, reasonable. And when the amount of daylight is going down from 5% to 3%, when you turn that into a percentage, it sounds horrendous, whereas it's actually, in actual fact, only a 2% drop, a 40% drop from what it was, because we've had problems with that before. So, I think this is a fairly, at this point, fairly straightforward proposition. Does any members of the committee want to raise any comments or discussions? No. In which case, I'll put it to the vote. Those prepared, those willing to grant permission just tonight, please show. The former worst-based contribution, I think we've admitted that, so it will require, and the heads of terms will be slightly amended to address that, but I think they should see what we've shown. Thank you. The application's approved. There being no further business, I declare the meeting closed. There being no further business, no further business, there being a number one, a new activity, or whatever you call loose, And what you do does help people to to give a fullàng of text until just something are also conferences. Thanks, for recording, listen to this, we, with my good advice, I would've recently, read everyone in this, this, in the same meeting closed. And how, we're prepared, with my full == vast, we're prepared, there being no further business, in wherever we do, does not go naarqscol, it's uk,

or not available.