Proposal

Demolition of existing substation and construction of a part 8/16/24 storey building with basement, including 913 rooms of purpose built student accommodation (sui generis); 430sqm of exhibition space (Use Class D1); 120sqm of incubator floorspace and 1380sqm of office space (Use Class B1) at ground, first, second and third floor levels; together with cycle parking; landscaping and public realm improvements.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and obligations and GLA Stage II approval

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing substation and construction of a part 8/16/24 storey building to primarily accommodate student accommodation with associated communal space including: incubator space and exhibition space, cycle parking and public realm works.

Max Smith (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site location and the key features of the application, in particular the layout, the views of the proposal, the incubator space and the exhibition centre. There had been two rounds of consultations (the first on the original application and the second on the revised application). The issues raised around the height and scale of the development, the proposed land use, the amenity issues amongst other issues were noted.

The Committee were advised that:

·         In land use terms the proposal complied with policy given the site’s location in the Central Activities Zone and was scheduled to fall within the Preferred Office Location in the emerging Local Plan. The proposals would deliver a number of affordable student accommodation and commercial units. Details of this were noted, as set out in the Committee report.

·         Overall, the plans were considered to deliver a reasonable offer in terms of the student accommodation and would not lead to an oversupply of student accommodation in the area.

·         The site had an excellent PTAL rating and contributions had been secured for up to two on – street disabled parking bays. The proposal also included cycle parking space.

·         In design and heritage terms, it was considered that the revised design, would be more in keeping with the surrounding area and provided a appropriate response to the area. 

·         There would be no harmful impacts on amenity.

·         There would be clauses in the s106 agreement to preserve the archaeology on site in situ.

·         Other benefits of the proposal included the delivery of public realm works to facilitate permeability. 

In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.

Committee’s Questions

·         Members sought clarity in respect  of the sunlight and daylight assessment of the Relay Building  In response, Officers provided assurances that the assessment was sound. Given that the properties at the lower floor would experience very low impacts, it followed that those on the upper floors would experience even less of an impact.

·         Regarding the affordability of the student accommodation and the allocation process, Officers outlined the eligibility criteria in the London Plan SPG, and provided assurances about their affordability. Details of the nomination agreement would be set out in the s106 agreement. It was also confirmed that this would include a requirement for a late stage review of the affordable housing. However it was expected that the proposal should be built out quickly, so it was unlikely this could yield any additional accommodation.

·         The Committee also asked questions about use of the incubator space and it’s affordability to small businesses. Officers confirmed that, despite the reductions in it’s size, it should provide good quality work space, at peppercorn rent, with the potential to accommodate a broad  ranges of businesses.  It was considered that, along with the provision of the affordable commercial space, this was a good benefit of the application.

·         The Committee asked questions about the accessibility of the exhibition space to the public. The Committee expressed support for this and for measures to ensure that it remained a theatre space for the lifetime of the development.

·         It was noted that details of the management arrangements would be set out in the s106 agreement. Officers would recommend that this included conditions securing public access to the site and preserving its use as a theatre. 

·         With the permission of the Chair, a representative of Historic England addressed the meeting, highlighting the heritage value of the site and the measures to preserve the heritage benefits and cultural offering.

·         The Committee also asked questions about the landscaping and the public realm proposals. They were keen to ensure that they were of a high quality and reflected the green spaces illustrated in the Committee presentation.

·         Officers drew attention to the conditions in the report covering this and confirmed they would take on board the Committee’s views in agreeing this condition.

·         Members also discussed the supply of student accommodation in the area and progress in meeting the targets for such housing. They also discussed the merits of providing housing on the site.

·         Officers advised of the lack of student accommodation in the immediate area. Given this along with the PTAL rating and the land use issues - including the problems with providing general housing on the site, Officers considered that the site was suitable for a student development. The site had been vacant for a long time so, this would provide an opportunity to bring it back into use.

·         It was also noted the proposal would contribute to the Council’s housing targets and London wide student accommodation targets.

·         It was also noted that there were a number of tall buildings near the development and it would be located in a Tall Buildings Cluster.

·         Regarding air quality issues, it was noted that the Council’s Air Quality Officer had reviewed the proposals and considered that from an air quality view point, it was acceptable subject to the mitigation measures.

·         The Committee also asked questions about the shortfall of cycle parking spaces and sought assurances about this. In response, Officers advised that this was an ‘on balance decision’ taking into account the evidence about the low take up of cycle parking. However, the use of the cycle spaces would be monitored , via the Travel Plan, and if demand increased, a proportion of the communal space could be converted to provide additional cycle spaces.

On a vote of 5 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.         That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, conditional Planning permission be GRANTED at Site At 3-11 Goulston Street And 4-6 And 16-22 Middlesex Street, Middlesex Street, London for

• Demolition of existing substation and construction of a part 8/16/24 storey building with basement, including 913 rooms of purpose built student accommodation (sui generis); 430sqm of exhibition space (Use Class D1); 120sqm of incubator floorspace and 1380sqm of office space (Use Class B1) at ground, first, second and third floor levels; together with cycle parking; landscaping and public realm improvements, (PA/18/01544) SUBJECT TO

2.                     The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report

3.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement and to agree the section 106 legal agreement and any subsequent Rent and Nominations Agreement and Highway Agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters set out in the Committee report