Agenda item

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning the retrospective application for removal of three fume cupboard discharge flues and installation of three new extract flues to existing roof plant enclosure.

The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, reminded Members that the fact that this was a retrospective application should not be part of the considerations and that the application should be taken on its own merits.

The Town Clerk referred to those papers set out within the main agenda pack as well as the Officer presentation slides and addendum which had been separately circulated and published.

Officers presented the application highlighting the site in context with the listed Barbican Estate, which was Grade 2 listed, and the site within the Barbican Estate and Golden Lane Conservation Area. Members were also shown the site in the context of where the school sat within the estate and also its proximity to Saint Giles Cripplegate Church, which was a Grade 1 listed building.

Members were shown the site plan for the school and were informed that the proposal lay on the elevation of a plant enclosure on the western side of the main school building. They were shown images of the rooftop plant enclosure on the western side of the main school building, with the images being taken prior to the works which were then carried out to install flues. Members were shown images of the flues, comprising one horizontal flue and two vertical flues.

The Officer showed an image of the plant room prior to the amended flue installation which demonstrated the constrained and unsafe ladder access which was heavily compromised by the position of flues. Members were informed that the extract flue relocation was to accommodate a safe ladder access and they were shown images of the relocated flues and the new, safer compliant ladder access in the plant room. Members were also shown images of the flues prior to the amendment how they would appear afterwards.

Members were shown a view of the flues from Defoe House where they sat minimally as three grey marks, a view from Seddon House where they were minimally visible but partially obscured by trees and a view from Thomas More House demonstrating the flues were not visible from this location. Members were also shown a view from the Barbican Arts Centre, which was likely to be one of the views where the flues were the most visible, a view from the adjacent highwalk where they were minimally visible and two views from Wallside where they were not visible.

The Officer stated that the flues themselves were not the subject of a planning application when they were installed, and that was why they were being dealt with as a retrospective application. During the course of the application, Officers treated them as they would any other application and they explored the constraints and the design requirements for the flues to arrive at a solution which would alleviate objectors’ concerns. A meeting was also held with two objecting residents and the Barbican Association early on in this process. To see the concerns objectors had with this installation, Members were shown an image of the solution that was found, which was a reduction of the flues from their originally installed height of 1.3 metres down to 700 millimetres, a reduction of 600 millimetres in total. This brought them below the roof slope and significantly reduced their visibility and made them appear as a more natural and normal form of utilitarian roof servicing.

The Officer stated that the materials of the flues were subject to condition. They would be submitted to Officers for review to make sure that they were visually congruent with the roof enclosure behind them. Members were informed that the reduction in height would not lead to any reduction in air quality or any reduction in the dispersal qualities of the original flues. The intake behind this installation would be infilled so that there was no spilling back into the plant enclosure and given that the flues served an internal science cupboard, they were not the same as flues which might serve plant machinery that ran all day. They ran when necessary to extract a fume cupboard from a science classroom.

Members were shown a comparison image which showed the flues now and how they would appear in the future. It was considered that they, as amended, would have a neutral impact on the heritage assets outlined and that they would have an acceptable impact on residential amenity. As such, Officers recommended this for approval.

There were no objectors registered to speak. The Deputy Chairman invited the applicant to speak.

Mr John Hall stated he was Chief Operating Officer at the City Schools, covering the Junior School, Girls’ School and Boys’ School who were not the building owners. They were the occupiers and such projects were run for them by City Surveyors. They were however, the project funder. It was the parents’ fees that were invested in the 20-year programme of renewal and there was a commitment to the upkeep of the Barbican estate, extending the lifespan of the school building there and the associated infrastructure as well. Mr Hall stated he was unable to comment in a technical capacity, but he understood during the course of the project that these were essential alterations in order to be compliant so that the school could have new fuel cabinets, to update the science teaching facilities. They learned about this late in the process and regretted that this ended up being a retrospective application.

A Member asked for reassurance from the school that there would be a more strategic engagement plan with local residents going forward. Mr Hall assured the Member that this would be the case and stated he met with the chairs of the residents’ committees regularly every term and they talked in broad terms about the schools plans e.g. the science refurbishment. He stated there had been a gap in terms of this design detail which the school did not have sight of at the time. They had discussed with City Surveyors that in terms of the detailed engagement the school needed more information and there needed to be more proactive engagement with residents. Mr Hall stated he was meeting with the Planning Department to agree a regular forum through which issues could be raised as sometimes the works at the school were fragmented between different parties, and different parts of City Surveyors. Mr Hall stated he had also met with the chair of the resident association’s planning committee to discuss improvements going forward.

Seeing no further questions the Deputy Chairman moved to the vote.

The Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them.

Votes were cast as follows:  IN FAVOUR – 10 votes

  OPPOSED – 0 votes

  There were 0 abstentions.

The recommendations were therefore carried unanimously.

[Deputy John Fletcher, Deputy Edward Lord and Amy Horscroft were not in attendance for this item and therefore did not vote.]

RESOLVED -

That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule with any relevant amendments in the addendum.