Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking agreement to alterations to the north terrace at level 6 to include installation of 1.3m high glass balustrade; timber decking, lighting, planters and seating; double doors to provide access to the terrace from the existing offices and installation of a spiral staircase to access level 7 and alterations to the west terrace at level 8 to include removal of existing projecting (non-structural) columns; installation of 1.3m high glass balustrade; timber decking, lighting, planters and seating; double doors to improve access to the existing terrace from the offices.

Officers tabled an addendum to the report detailing an additional condition setting out the need for landscaping and planting to be installed prior to the first use of the roof terraces at levels 06 and 08 and maintained for the lifetime of the development. Officers also highlighted some corrections to the report stating that the comment from the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection regarding usage of the terraces at paragraph 6 should read “… between the hours of 1800 hours on one day and 0900 hours on the following day”. Paragraph 8 of the report should also reference 28 neighbour responses received and not 24.

Officers went on to report that this application essentially centred around the refurbishment and improved use of two existing terraces. The main issues stemming from the application were striking a balance between office use and the concerns of neighbouring residents. Members were informed that residents had been consulted as part of the application process and that the applicant, who had originally requested use of the terraces from 8am-8pm, had made concessions around this to address concerns and had also agreed to no use on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Officers summarised the location of the terraces and the proposed alterations which included the installation of timber decking, planting around the edge and the installation of seating. They went on to highlight that the level of the terraces would remain unchanged and that there was also the possibility of a spiral staircase from level 6 to 7 being installed. Members were shown visuals of this. Members were informed that the second terrace was situated 24m from Willoughby House and 16m from the Heron building. There were currently doors on to this terrace and there were non-structural beams to be removed in this location. Both terraces were usable at present and the City of London Corporation had no control over their use as things currently stood.

Officers went on to clarify that the 28 objections received had centred around noise, lighting and loss of privacy – they were, however, of the view that conditions now adequately covered these points and that the application could be approved with these conditions attached.

The Chair thanked Officers for their presentation of the application and, in the absence of any speakers, invited questions from the Committee.

A Member questioned whether it would be possible to condition the height of the plants when first installed so as to ensure a screening effect at the edge of the terraces. Officers reported that the condition tabled required details of planting and also its ongoing maintenance. They added that this could be added to so that mature planting was sought from the outset. 

Another Member referred to the objection received from the organisation’s former Chief Planning Officer and highlighted that this did not, however, specifically request that this application be refused given that there were no clear cut grounds for doing so.

A third Member referred to the 28 objections received in total. He recognised that some had called for restricted hours of use for the terraces and that this point had been conceded by the applicant, but there were others who seemed to object to the application more fully. It was important, therefore, to assess this application against relevant planning considerations. The Member went on to refer to the written report – specifically paragraph 16 concerning assessment of the application in terms of land use. He highlighted the statement here that the provision of roof terraces could promote health and wellbeing but questioned what discernible health benefits this really offered.

The Member continued, referring this time to Local Plan Policy CS1, and the provision of additional offices. He stated that this same policy had been considered in light of a recent, similar application where it had been adequately argued that the provision of a roof terrace did not equate to additional office space or employment. In his view, the same arguments applied here, on a larger scale, and the land use argument was therefore inadequately played out within the report.

In terms of design, the Member spoke on the proposed removal of thirteen projecting (non-structural) architectural beams at level 8. He suggested that the beams, if non-structural, were clearly intended as part of the architectural context of the building and questioned why their removal would therefore be acceptable or anything other than negative in design terms. The written report, with reference to contribution to the ‘fifth elevation’ offered, in his opinion, a description and not a justification for their removal. The Member stated that the removal of these beams would, in his opinion, lead to a distinct break in the flow of the building.

The Member turned to noise and disturbance issues suggesting that noise during the day would be amplified by the narrow streets surrounding the building which would create an ‘echo effect’ and also by the glass building situated directly behind the terrace. He concluded that it should be for the applicant to prove that there would be no noise nuisance here. He also referred to concerns around privacy and overlooking stating that use of these terraces would be contrary to our own policy (DM 10.3). He failed to see any good reason for going against policy here articulated within the report. He added that current use of the terraces which seemed limited at present and contained no seating areas was not a fair comparison to make. He also stated that office and residential use were two very different matters with office workers normally working from screens with desks angled away from any overlooking.

The Member concluded by stating that he felt that the applicant had failed to make the case for why this application should be granted and that, in his view, it should be refused in its current state.

Officers sought to address the various points made by the Member and began by stating that outdoor spaces were increasingly sought by offices due to their positive impact on health and wellbeing for workers. Policy CS1 also referred to the provision of office development of the highest quality and, for many, this now involved the inclusion of outdoor, break-out spaces. The Committee were also informed that the applicant was also prepared to provide a detailed Management Plan in terms of use of the terraces. The applicant were also known to have revoked the use of terraces elsewhere where complaints had been received.

In design terms, Members were shown visuals of the before and after effect of removing the thirteen beams. These showed that the essential architecture of the ‘fin’ would remain and that the overall impact would be minimal.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that, in some ways, noise would have to be self-managed. She went on to state that, whilst daytime noise should, of course, not be excessive, it was entirely appropriate within a residential area and would be subject to the Management Plan controls. She concluded by stating that it wasn’t for the applicant to prove why something should be allowed, it was for the planning authority to prove why it should not.

A Member commented that she had called, many years ago, for the development of a design brief for roof terraces given their increasing popularity. She went on to question whether the applicant had considered carrying out an analysis of noise impact from the terraces at present and how that might increase or decrease with this application. She also questioned if there was any information as to capacity level for the terraces and how some comfort might be provided to neighbouring residents that the 1800 terminal hour would be adhered to – could it, for example, be written in to the lease. Officers confirmed that this would be the case. Officers confirmed that there was no acoustic report available at present.

Another Member, who had also attended the site visit organised by Officers earlier in the week, stated that it was not possible to see inside the nearby residential units from the terraces during the daytime. He also highlighted that there were actually significant differences between this application and the similar application dealt with by this Committee in October – the key differences being the distance between the terraces and nearby residential property and the fact that the applicant had made concessions on the hours of usage. He would, however, support a harder line on the planting used for screening purposes which might also go some way to addressing noise concerns.

Another Member took up and concurred with the point made previously on the beams to be removed being part of the architectural concept of the building. She went on to state that there was potential for 400 people to be accessing these terraces given that each floor was occupied by 200 staff and also questioned accessibility to the terraces with a spiral staircase proposed from level 7. Officers responded that the staircase within the visuals provided today was shown indicatively but that extra detail could be requested at condition stage. In terms of access, the applicant was committed to providing level access and there was also an internal lift. Officers also stated that they were of the view that the architectural alterations proposed were entirely in keeping with the building and did not materially affect its presentation.

The Member also questioned the need for lighting on the terraces at all given that the proposed hours of usage terminated at 1800 and supported the need for more conditions around the maintenance and adequacy of the proposed planting intended as screenage. Finally, she questioned why Officers had attached so many conditions to the application – she suggested that these were needed due to the fact that this was essentially little more that an outline planning application at present.

Another Member stated that he was interested to note that none of the residents who had objected to the application were present to address the Committee this morning. He understood that there had been extensive dialogue between the applicant and residents to date and was therefore encouraged that this had been productive. He added that the Management Plan document offered by the applicant would be key here and questioned whether this Committee/Officers were able to have any influence on its content.

Officers agreed that the Management Plan would be key here. They added that the document could stipulate and control the maximum numbers of people permitted to access the terraces at any one time as well as set out the general use of the space and that planners would be in a position to influence this. The Chair highlighted that Officers were, of course, very well accustomed to regularly signing off on such documents.

Officers went on to reiterate that, unlike the previous, similar application referred to by Members, these terraces were already useable.

The Deputy Chairman spoke to disagree with the points made earlier around this being a ‘half-baked’ application in any sense. He, too, highlighted that, at present, the terraces in question could be utilised with the City Corporation able to assert no control over this. He agreed that the use of mature planting would be important and was reassured by Officers responses to this request. He referred to the points made around architectural damage but highlighted that the visuals depicted how minimal this would be. He concluded by commending the fact that residents had clearly been closely involved in the development of these proposals.

A Member expressed concerns as to how usage and hours of usage would be effectively enforced. She added that health and wellbeing was important in terms of local residents as well as workers.

The Committee moved to vote on the application with votes cast as follows:

·         IN FAVOUR – 13

·         OPPOSED – 4

There were no abstentions.

RESOLVED – That, planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule.