Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer (CPO) in respect of the redevelopment of the site for 'Demolition of existing building, retention of existing basement and construction of new residential building to provide 99 dwellings, together with ancillary car parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated works’.

The development comprised the demolition of the existing building and the

construction of a new residential building. The height of the proposed building

would range from ten storeys opposite Cripplegate House to six/eight storeys

opposite Bowater House, and would reduce in height along Brackley Street

from ten storeys to four storeys in the southwest corner. Of the 99 private flats

proposed ten would be studio flats, 41 would be one-bedroom flats (including

two duplex flats), 39 would be two-bedroom flats (including ten duplex flats)

and nine would be three-bedroom flats (including two duplex flats).

The CPO reported that the Committee’s resolution in respect of the previous Item, to agree the carrying out of an assessment as to whether a conservation area should be designated to include the application site, was material to the consideration of the application. However, the CPO advised that it should be given limited weight as the matter was in very early stages of consideration, and it did not affect the evaluation and recommendation. 

The CPO reported that in addition to the representations referred to in the report, a number of other representations had been received subsequently and had been circulated to Members. In addition, an email had been received from solicitors acting for the Bernard Morgan House Liaison Group requesting an adjournment of the Committee’s consideration so that omissions in the Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing  evaluation (which it was thought missed out consideration of some windows) could be considered and addressed.  The CPO advised that the City, having received advice from its appointed Daylight and Sunlight expert, Paul Littlefair of the Building Research Establishment, did not consider there was any omission, or that windows which should have been considered had not been taken into account. She stated that Paul Littlefair would address the Committee and comment on the concern expressed regarding the perceived omission, and that it was not considered an adjournment was required.

Paul Littlefair clarified that the concerns about perceived omissions arose due to inconsistent labelling between different analysis, but that all relevant windows had been analysed to establish the impacts of the application. He also  reported on his independent review of the Applicant’s Daylight, Sunlight and overshadowing assessment of the impacts of the application, and. Reported that while there would be some impacts these were generally minor in nature and acceptable given the densely built up urban nature of the site.              

Mark Campbell, Emma Matthews and Fred Rodgers (Bernard Morgan House Liaison Group), Tim Godsmark (Golden Lane estate Residents Association) Mai Le Verschoyle (Cobalt Building), Mary Durcan and William Pimlott  (Court of Common Council Members, Cripplegate ward) spoke in objection to the proposals, including concerns that  they  did not meet the CoL Corporation’s planning policy, were an over-development of the site, would have a negative impact on its surroundings, including neighbouring dwellings, church, school and park in terms of over-shadowing, over-looking and over-domination. All without adequate contribution to the affordable housing supply.

Ingrid Osborne, Paul Henry, Lloyd Spencer and Nick Lane were heard on behalf of the applicant Taylor Wimpey.

Members raised a number of questions in relation to daylight/sunlight issues including the relevance of balconies in assessing impacts, compliance with the London Plan’s Density standards, the contribution towards the provision of affordable housing including whether the applicant would be willing to make a greater contribution or agree a review of the contribution, and whether the viability assessment was out of date. Members also queried the impact on the community, transport, servicing and parking.

During consideration of this item, and in respect of Standing Order No. 40, the Chairman sought the Committee’s consent to extend the meeting to allow the item to be considered.

In debating the issue Members’ principal issues of concern included the contribution to social housing which did not follow the CoL’s policy for on-site affordable homes and instead was replacing key worker housing with housing that was unaffordable to the majority of the local population and therefore would not benefit the public. Issues of concern also included impacts on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing and the methodology for assessing impacts. A Member questioned whether or not the CoL were achieving ‘best value’ as the applicant appeared  to have underestimated selling prices and over-estimated the building costs. The site value should have equated to market value. Concern was also expressed that concessions appeared to have been made in evaluating the application which seemed in the Applicant’s favour,

The CPO advised that the NPPF advised planning authorities that they should adopt a presumption in favour of  sustainable development and the Local Plan needed to be looked at a whole. The proposals were considered to be appropriate, well served by public transport, and the density was considered appropriate.

Alderman Sir Michael Bear MOVED an Amendment to Recommendation 2 to make provision for an upward only review of the affordable housing contribution. .

The Amendment was SECONDED by Randall Anderson

Arising from the discussion a vote was taken on the amendment:

20 FOR

0 AGAINST

1 Abstention

A vote was also taken on the original recommendation

13 FOR

10 AGAINST

The AMENDMENT was CARRIED and the Committee RESOLVED:

1)    That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to: planning obligations and other agreements being entered into in respect of those matters set out in the report, the decision notice not to be issued until such obligations have been executed;

2)    That your Officers be delegated to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in "Planning Obligations" under

Section 106 and that provision be made in the Section 106 Agreement for an upward only independent review of the affordable housing contribution  which the Chairman and Alderman Sir Michael Bear will be consulted on; and

3)    That the land affected by the building which is currently public highway and land over which the public have right of access may be stopped up to enable the development to proceed and, upon receipt of the formal application, officers be instructed to proceed with arrangements for advertising and (subject to consideration of consultation responses) making of a Stopping-up Order for the area shown marked on the Stopping-up Plan annexed to this report under the delegation arrangements approved by the Court of Common Council.