The meeting considered two applications. Permission was granted for amendments to a partially built office development at 1 Pear Tree Street, and for the demolition and redevelopment of Castle House and Fitzroy House on 37-45 Paul Street, 13-17 Epworth Street and 1-15 Clere Street.

1 Pear Tree Street

The application was to vary conditions on an existing planning permission for a four and five-storey office development. The changes included increasing the height of the building by one metre, relocating the affordable workspace from the ground floor to the first floor, and amending the appearance and material palette of the building. The application was granted, with amendments made to some of the conditions.

The Committee discussed the proposed changes to the building's design.

This is a very well-designed scheme that makes a more effective use of the site, is more sustainable than that originally consented, and is of a superior architectural design that the earlier consented scheme. The celebration of the entrancing modules onto Pear Street are particularly successful adding not just legibility to the scheme itself but an animated and characterful addition to the streetscape.

The quote is attributed to the Design and Conservation Officer's report on the application.

The applicant agreed to several changes to the conditions on the permission, in response to residents' concerns. These changes included:

• A commitment to not carrying out noisy works on Saturdays.
• Restricting the use of the roof terrace to weekdays only.

The applicant agreed to rule out noisy construction work on Saturdays after some discussion about their Construction Management Plan (CMP).

"Councillor Klute: So, can we minute that and put it in the construction management plan?

Planning Officer: Yeah, if there’s a motion to do that, and it’s agreed and it’s delegated to officers."

Castle House and Fitzroy House

The application was to demolish existing buildings and replace them with a new part 5, 6, and 7-storey office building. The application was controversial, with local residents and businesses raising concerns about the height and massing of the proposed building, its impact on daylight and sunlight to nearby properties, and the applicant's level of engagement with the local community.

Despite these concerns, the application was granted.

The application was deferred at three previous meetings.

• At the first meeting in July 2023, the Committee was concerned about the quality of the affordable workspace, the impact on residents with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and the applicant's assessment of whole life-cycle carbon emissions.
• At the second meeting in October 2023, the Committee was concerned about the daylight and sunlight impacts of the proposal on nearby properties, and asked the Applicant to consider further mitigation measures. The Committee also expressed concerns that the Applicant’s efforts to engage with local residents were insufficient. The Committee asked the Applicant to further consult with local stakeholders.
• At the third meeting in January 2024, the Committee was concerned that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the daylight and sunlight impacts on two properties on Clere Street had been properly considered, and requested further details on this aspect of the proposal.

The applicant revised the plans each time, making some adjustments to the height and massing of the building in response to the Committee's concerns about its impact on 10 Epworth Street, which had a large number of residents who were considered vulnerable.

The Committee discussed at length the impact of the proposed building on daylight and sunlight to nearby properties. A key part of this discussion was the concept of mirror massing, which is a method of assessing daylight impacts.

“Councillor Convery: So it’s kind of reasonable to say: ‘Well, if a building very much like yours was on the other side of the street, the impact of your building would be to….’"

Officers explained that mirror massing is used to create a more realistic baseline for assessment in dense urban areas, as the standard BRE assessments can be overly restrictive in these contexts.

There was extensive discussion about the merits of demolishing the existing building, rather than retaining and retrofitting it. This discussion took place in the context of Islington Council's Climate Emergency Declaration.

Councillor Handesh: For me, this process underlines some of my concerns about the planning process in general. I mean, whole life carbon cycles are an emerging science, and I’m very conscious that our current process means that developers get to mark their own homework when it comes to whole life carbon. I think the fact that we have a process that doesn’t allow for third party assessments of whole life carbon is troubling.

However, the applicant's analysis, which was reviewed by the Greater London Authority, showed that the carbon cost of demolition was outweighed by the benefits of a new, more energy-efficient building.

There was heated debate about the adequacy of the applicant’s efforts to engage with residents and businesses, with the objectors arguing that they were insufficient. In particular, the objectors were angry that meetings scheduled by the applicant took place only a few days before the end of the Council's statutory consultation period.

“The Applicant: In response to a question on why a setback to all elevations had not been considered besides the relatively small cutbacks that were carried out on the Clere Street elevation, the Applicant indicated that there was an understanding from the committee’s recommendation at the deferred meeting was to reduce the visual impact from the street level to the upper floors. It was also stated that in relation to BRE guidelines, the building is right for the site, that it will provide huge benefit to the local area noting that jobs and improvement to the public realm will offset the harm from the building.”

Ultimately, the Committee concluded that the applicant had adequately addressed the previous reasons for deferral, and the application was granted. The application was subject to numerous conditions, including the requirement to limit construction working hours and the use of the rooftop terraces.