18 October 2019

Planning Policy Team

Freepost RTXU-ETKU-KECB

Planning Policy

Islington Council

Town Hall

Upper Street

London N1 2UD

Dear Sir or Madam,

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

PLANNING ISLINGTON’S FUTURE: CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

(REGULATION 19 STAGE)

REPRESENTATIONS BY LION PORTFOLIO LIMITED

We write on behalf of Lion Portfolio Limited in relation to the draft Local Plan (Regulation 19 stage).

Our client is the freehold owner of both Castle House which occupies 37-45 Paul Street, and Fitzroy

House which occupies 13-17 Epworth Street and 1-15 Clere street.

DP9 have been instructed by Lion Portfolio Limited to undertake a review of the Regulation 19 draft of

the new Islington Local Plan, which is made up of the following documents:

- Draft Islington Local Plan: Strategic and Development Management Policies DPD (September

2019);

- Draft Islington Site Allocations DPD (September 2019);

- Draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan DPD (September 2019).

The evidence base which has informed the preparation of the Local Plan documents includes Islington’s

Tall Building Study (Urban Initiatives Studio, November 2018), which has also been subject of our

review. The Local Plan is intended to cover the period 2020 to 2035 (‘the plan period’).

On the 13th of January 2019, we submitted representations on behalf of Lion Portfolio Limited on the

Regulation 18 draft of the new Islington Local Plan. The conclusions of these representations remain

valid, and are appended to this document in full, located at Appendix 1.

About Lion Portfolio Limited

Lion Portfolio Limited have appointed Capreon, an asset management company, to manage Castle

House and Fitzroy House. Capreon are an established asset management and investment company

boasting an impressive portfolio with a global reach. In 2018 Lion Portfolio Limited consolidated the

R19.0143

2

ownership of the site of Castle House & Fitzroy House to 100%, having maintained a shareholding for

over 20 years.

Lion Portfolio Limited have commissioned a multi-disciplinary team to conduct analysis into the

redevelopment potential for the site, in addition to submitting representations on their behalf in relation

to the draft Islington Local Plan. Lion Portfolio Limited have instructed Montagu Evans LPP to review

the townscape and heritage context, and architecture firm Morris + Company to assess redevelopment

options of the Site.

Both Lion Portfolio Limited and Capreon comprise the portfolio of the Noe Group, a longstanding

family run business, which has diverse interests, ranging from asset management to providing workspace

for tech start-up companies under its Goldacre business.

Castle House and Fitzroy House Site Allocation

The Regulation 18 draft of the new Islington Local Plan had separated Castle House and Fitzroy House

into two separate site allocations; BC48 (Castle House) and BC50 (Fitzroy House). Within our

Regulation 18 representations, the case was made for consolidating these two allocations into one

standalone site allocation. Principally, the sites are effectively one building, and as such to ensure their

effective redevelopment, it is important that the site is developed as a whole.

As such, we are supportive of the Regulation 19 draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan DPD

allocation for Castle House and Fitzroy House, as both are included as a single site allocation; BC48:

Castle House, 37-45 Paul Street, EC2A 4JU; and Fitzroy House, 13-17 Epworth Street, EC2A 4DL and

1-15 Clere Street, EC2A 4UY.

Meeting Growth Requirements

Draft Policy B1 Delivering business floorspace outlines Islington’s strategic approach to securing a

significant uplift in commercial floorspace within the borough over the plan period. Supporting

paragraph 4.7 states:

‘Islington has a strong and prosperous economy. It has grown significantly in recent years and is set

to grow even further. Evidence produced by the Council demonstrates an unprecedented high need for

additional office floorspace – 400,000sqm up to 2036. Land supply in Islington is highly constrained;

the borough is the most densely populated and third smallest (by land area) English local authority.

This extremely limited land supply coupled with exceptionally high need for new space to

accommodate projected jobs growth means that the Council must do more to protect existing business

floorspace and encourage the delivery of new business floorspace.’

We support the strategic aim of an uplift of 400,000 sqm of B1 office floorspace in the borough over the

plan period. Additionally, we are supportive of Islington’s strategic aim to encourage the delivery of

new business floorspace to enable this figure to be achieved.

An additional 400,000 sqm is an ambitious target, but is based on the figures presented in the LBI

Employment Land Study (2016), which comprises part of the evidence base for the new Local Plan. As

3

this study was undertaken in 2016, there is a strong potential that the actualised demand has since

increased from this figure, and that the provision of over 400,000 sqm of B1 office floorspace over the

plan period is now required. It is also estimated that over the plan period, an additional 50,500 jobs will

be created in the borough, hence the provision of employment floorspace is of key importance.

As such, the delivery of this circa 400,000 sqm uplift is crucial in ensuring the borough can provision

for the predicted demand for office floorspace in the borough, and so it can safeguard economic

prosperity.

The strategic growth identified by LBI is echoed by the Draft London Plan (consolidated changes

version (July 2019)) which recognises parts of Bunhill and Clerkenwell as nationally significant office

locations (Tech City). Draft Policy E1 (Offices) states that “The unique agglomerations and dynamic

clusters of world city businesses and other specialist functions of the central London office market,

including the CAZ, NIOD (Northern Isle of Dogs) and other nationally-significant office locations (such

as Tech City and Kensington & Chelsea), should be developed and promoted”.

On this basis, we would suggest that the figure of 400,000sqm be incorporated in to draft Policy B1 to

enshrine the commitment. At part C of draft Policy B we would suggest the following wording:

“The Council is committed to ensuring there is an adequate supply of business space in line with job

growth projections equating to 400,000sqm of B1 floorspace over the plan period. The Council and

will protect existing business space throughout the borough through implementing planning policies

which seek to ensure, at least, no net loss of business floorspace, and through the making of Article 4

Directions, where appropriate.”

However, as referenced within supporting paragraph 4.7 quoted above, the borough is significantly

constrained in terms of land supply, and we are concerned that this, combined with certain restrictive

emerging policies, will depress the delivery of this 400,000 sqm and suppress the economic growth of

the borough overall. The restrictive policies include policies concerned with tall buildings, and

affordable workspace, both of which are addressed in detail within this letter.

The supporting text to draft London Plan Policy E1 at paragraph 6.1.3 states “The projections indicate

that the CAZ boroughs and some parts of inner London will continue to see growth in office employment

and development of new office floorspace, driven by agglomeration economies, high value-added

activities and viability of new space. There is broadly sufficient capacity to accommodate this demand

in the CAZ and Northern Isle of Dogs complemented by Tech City and Kensington & Chelsea, although

there are sub-markets within these areas where demand may exceed capacity”. One of these constrained

sub-markets is the Tech City component of Islington. In the evidence base for the draft New London

Plan the London Office Policy Review (2017) notes that Islington will have a composite requirement

for 373,000sqm of space between 2016 and 2041. The document notes that capacity is currently only

estimated at 233,910 sqm equating to a 189% shortfall.

The LBI Employment Land Study (2016) highlights the significant loss of employment land in recent

years (including B1 office floorspace), as a result of office to residential development under PDR. This

yielded a loss of 16,344 sqm of B1 office floorspace in the borough from 2005-2015. This is a worrying

trend which is continuing and means that the delivery of B1 office floorspace is a pressing need across

4

the borough.

The LBI Employment Land Study (2016) does not identify where the delivery of the targeted 400,000

sqm will be achieved. Section 6 of the Employment Land Study, the Employment Site Assessment,

provides a review of sites located within Employment Growth Areas, Employment Priority Areas, and

Town Centres in LBI, to provide a view on their qualities in ownership, operational and development

terms. Within this assessment, there is no discussion nor indication of the levels of floorspace that each

site or area could yield. Section 8.4.2 of the LBI Employment Land Study states:

‘’Current permissions coming through the planning system will generate a loss of some 17,300 sq m of

B1 space (including 12,600 sq m of B1(a) space) and at present there is no identified pipeline of new

office proposals that will come close to meeting the forecast target.’’

Within the draft Local Plan documents, the only indication of the locations in which the borough

envisages this 400,000 sqm of B1 office floorspace coming forward is within the ‘site capacity

assumptions’ sections of both the Draft Islington Local Plan and the Draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area

Action Plan DPD. The site capacity assumptions are indicative figures based on calculating the amount

of floorspace the allocated sites could sustain, however, the individual quantum derived from each site

is not specified. Instead, the quantum’s are prescribed to Spatial Strategy Areas, representing a very light

touch approach to identifying land supply for the need of B1 office floorspace. Furthermore, there is no

adequate explanation as to how the Council arrived at these figures, because the potential amount of

floorspace that could be delivered from individual sites is not evidenced at all.

Additionally, the site capacity assumptions for the Spatial Strategy Areas covered by the draft Local

Plan equate to the provision of 136,100 sqm B1 office floorspace over the plan period. The site capacity

assumptions for the Spatial Strategy Areas within the Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area equate to

201,400 sqm of B1 office floorspace over the plan period. This still represents an unaccounted shortfall

of 62,500 sqm of B1 office floorspace over the plan period, when compared to the 400,000 sqm

requirement.

Clearly this vast identified need, chronic lack of supply, lack of forthcoming proposals, and the failure

of the Council to identify enough suitable sites for B1 office development is worrying, and will have

severely negative consequences for the borough’s economy.

To achieve the required 400,000 sqm of additional B1 office floorspace over the plan period (2020-

2035), approximately 27,000 sqm of B1 office floorspace must be delivered annually. The LBI Annual

Monitoring Report 2018 demonstrates the trend of losing B1 office floorspace in the borough annually,

with losses of 12,352sqm in 2015/16, 29,423sqm in 2016/17 and 1,787sqm in 2017/18. Clearly, to

reverse this trend, and to deliver the required circa 27,000 sqm of uplift in B1 office floorspace annually,

other restrictive policies within the plan need to be relaxed. The redevelopment of Castle House and

Fitzroy House can deliver at least a year’s worth of targeted demand (27,000 sqm) or potentially more,

however, we will be unable to do so without modifications to other unnecessarily restrictive policies.

Draft Policy B1 and the associated supporting text explicitly states that land supply in Islington is highly

constrained. Indeed, the LBI Employment Land Study (2016) evidence base document also references

this constrained supply, and demonstrates the impact this has on rental rates:

5

‘Relatively constrained supply, combined with consistent occupier demand in recent years has placed

upward pressure on rents, and good quality space within the CAZ fringe area is now on a par with that

in the City core.’

Hence, in order to keep up with the unprecedented increases in demand for office floorspace in the

borough, unnecessarily restrictive policies need to be reviewed, so that the finite land supply in the

borough can be fully utilised, and the development potential of specific sites fully capitalised upon.

The site at Castle House and Fitzroy House can deliver a significant amount of B1 floorspace targeted

over the plan period, at least tripling the existing circa 10,000 sqm of B1 floorspace at the site. However,

due to the unnecessarily restrictive policies, this quantum may not be realised and the full potential of

the site will not be unlocked. Furthermore, this is not a site-specific issue, and it is considered that a

substantial number of other sites within the borough will also encounter this issue, culminating in a

detrimental undersupply of B1 office floorspace against the predicted need. The impacts of this will be

highly negative for the borough as a whole and indeed London given the national importance of this

area. It will mean that existing rental rates are driven up due to a chronic lack of supply and an increasing

demand, which over the plan period is likely to drive some businesses out of the borough, harmfully

impacting on the borough’s economic well-being.

Tall Buildings

The Tall Building Study (TBS) forms part of the evidence base of the draft Local Plan documents. It has

informed the drafting of Draft Policy DH3 (Building Heights) and relevant spatial strategy policies.

Our previous representations highlighted that the assessment and identification of site specific locations

potentially suitable for tall buildings undertaken by the TBS were not considered to be sufficiently

robust, were overly restrictive and could unnecessarily hinder potential development in the Borough.

We identified three primary concerns with the TBS analysis:

• design and its means of potentially mitigating adverse impacts were not adequately considered;

• the visual assessment of potential tall building sites was unverified and not based on detailed

site surveys, did not take account of detailed design and was not in accordance with best practice

or policy relating to applications for tall buildings that requires appropriate supporting material

– typically including detailed 3d modelling and Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs) – to

verify the visual impact of proposals on protected views, heritage assets and townscape; and

• it does not account for changes to sites within the local search areas over the plan period or

infrastructure upgrades/ improvements and does not allow sufficient flexibility to adapt to any

changes that are likely to occur over the plan period, as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

The analysis undertaken by the TBS is too broad and general to result in the robust identification of

specific sites potentially suitable for tall buildings and lacks sufficient detail to discount such an extent

of the Borough from being potentially suitable for tall buildings. Indeed, the Council acknowledge that

the TBS is not sufficient to replace the need for site specific assessment of tall buildings proposals

through the planning process.

6

Despite the above, the Council’s response (‘Table 4.1: Summary of responses to Islington Local Plan

Regulation 18 draft documents consultation’) considers that the Tall Buildings Study is a robust basis

for the proposed approach set out in the draft Local Plan and that it is consistent with the draft London

Plan. We maintain that the approach of identifying potential locations for tall buildings is broadly in

keeping with the draft London Plan in as far as the plan-led approach to identifying locations where tall

buildings may be appropriate, but that the site-specific designation of appropriate sites for tall buildings

and blanket restrictions outside of those sites does not reflect policy requirements and is unjustified.

Draft Policy D1 (London’s Form, character and capacity for growth) states that ‘area assessments should

be used to identify the areas that are appropriate for extensive, moderate, or limited growth to

accommodate borough-wide growth requirements’ and does not require identification of specific sites

to accommodate growth. Draft Policy D8 (Tall Buildings) states that ‘Boroughs should determine if

there are locations where tall buildings may be an appropriate form of development, subject to meeting

the other requirements of the Plan’, the approach advocated is in relation to identification of potential

locations and is not a wholly prescriptive process that can rule out the potential for tall buildings outside

of locations identified as potentially suitable for tall buildings.

Zonal/Area of Search Approach

To address the unjustified designation of specific sites for tall buildings we maintain that proposals for

tall buildings should be guided to the strategic search areas identified in the TBS and then scrutinised

on a site by site basis through the planning application process and/or through more detailed site specific

policy and/or guidance such as master plans.

This approach is in conformity with policy requirements and is one that has been considered appropriate

for other existing and emerging local plans in London:

• Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031: Following Examination in Public the Planning Inspectorate’s

report on the Local Plan (September 2019), deemed that the Tower Hamlets Tall Buildings Study

(Urban Initiatives Studio, 2018) formed part of a robust evidence base that justified policy

relating to where tall building development should be directed in the borough. The evidence base

informed the identification of five tall building zones where clusters of tall buildings may be

developed. Draft Policy D.DH6 (Tall buildings) also provides criteria for assessing the

development of tall buildings outside of these zones. This approach was deemed by the Planning

Inspectorate to be both justified and effective and ensures that the policy can respond to

development pressures outside of the tall building zones in the most appropriate manner.

• Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (Reg 19 Publication Draft, June 2019): The policy for tall

buildings has been informed by the Westminster Building Height Study (Urban Initiatives

Studio, June 2019). The study includes initial modelling that was carried out to test the visibility

and potential impacts of tall buildings on a number of sites within Westminster. This modelling

was carried out for sites that were considered to have the potential to accommodate tall buildings

based on their location and development opportunity. For these selected sites view shed analysis

was used to test the visibility of buildings at a range of heights. The impacts from particular

sensitive viewpoints was then tested in the VuCity model and compared to street views taken

from google maps. The views were not verified and the study notes that they should not be treated

as accurate depictions of where buildings may be visible from but rather as an initial guide to

7

inform the initial evaluation. The study identified five areas that may have capacity for additional

tall buildings as they have fewer constraints than other parts of the city, could make a contribution

to growth and regeneration and are well connected. Draft Policy 42 (Building Height) of the local

plan seeks to plan positively for tall buildings in certain locations and based on the building

height study states that the development of tall buildings may be acceptable within the five-area

identified. In addition, the City Plan acknowledges that the study cannot wholly restrict the

potential for tall buildings elsewhere in the borough and states, ‘The Westminster Building Height

Study did not identify further opportunities for tall buildings outside the five areas and tall

buildings are therefore not generally acceptable outside of these areas. However, there may be

instances where a tall building of a local scale elsewhere in the city may be appropriate as it

strengthens the role of the place in the townscape and does not affect the function of other tall

buildings or tall building clusters. We therefore set additional criteria to asses any proposals for

tall buildings outside of the areas identified in the policy.’ (paragraph 42.7)

• New Southwark Local Plan Proposed Submission Version (2019): Draft Policy 14 (Tall

Buildings) provides relevant design criteria and impact considerations for tall building proposals

and states that tall buildings, ‘will be located in areas that benefit from the highest levels of public

transport access where there is the greatest opportunity for regeneration. Typically this will be

in our major town centres, Opportunity Areas and the Central Activities Zone.’

Assessment Criticisms

As per paragraph 31 of the NPPF, the preparation and review of policies should be underpinned by

relevant and up-to-date evidence. Planning policies need to be justified (NPPG: Paragraph: 045

Reference ID: 61-045-20190315) and key stakeholders should be consulted in identifying the issues and

any relevant data that the assessment must cover (NPPG: Paragraph: 038 Reference ID: 61-038-

20190315).

Sieve Analysis

Despite our response, and a range of comments from other parties on the TBS methodology, the Council

maintain that the TBS is a robust basis for the proposed approach set out in the draft Local Plan and

Draft Policy DH3. The Council state that the TBS has considered the whole borough before focusing on

several narrower areas of search after ruling out other areas due to ‘evident constraints’. The Council

state that the methodology is clearly set out in section 5 of the TBS and that the entire CAZ was

considered initially, but subsequently the majority of this area was ruled out ‘primarily due to views or

conservation areas’.

As highlighted in our previous submission, the details of the qualitative judgements that have been made

about ruling out areas potentially suitable for tall buildings is not clearly detailed in the TBS. With regard

to views and conservation areas we highlighted the following:

• Conservation Areas: the TBS states in its methodology that Conservation Areas (CAs) were not

subject to automatic exclusion in the methodology (page 57), but large areas were ruled out

without any details of the qualitative judgements that have been made detailed in the TBS. In

addition, the Historic England document, GPA4, on tall buildings, does not rule out tall buildings

from conservation areas or other similarly sensitive land (e.g. settings of listed buildings). All

8

that best practice guide does is refer to the balancing provisions of the Framework at 196 and

197, as providing one justification for tall buildings.

• Views: the exclusion of the potential for tall buildings within designated views is overly

restrictive and is not based on verified views or detailed designs of potential tall buildings. This

approach does not follow the London Plan Policy 7.12 (LVMF) approach and best practice

guidance for LVMF views, which states that designated views require a level of management

appropriate to the potential impact on the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate

strategically important landmarks and heritage assets. Thus, site specific consideration of

impacts on views, based on Accurate Visual Representations, is required in order to determine

the impacts of development proposals and wholesale discounting of tall buildings within locally

designated views is not considered appropriate.

Modelling

The Council’s response states that, ‘In order to identify locations potentially suitable for tall buildings,

a detailed analysis and characterisation study of areas of search was undertaken which was informed

by desktop studies and site visits. The TBS uses 3d modelling to understand the impact and identify

appropriate height of potential hypothetical tall buildings.’

As highlighted in our previous submission the TBS uses basic 3d modelling that is not verified and does

not include landscaping or other existing details. In accordance with best practice, and existing and

emerging planning policy, robust assessment of the visual impact of a tall building is essential to

determine whether a proposal is appropriate for a site and its context. Applications for tall buildings

must provide appropriate supporting material – typically including detailed 3d modelling and Accurate

Visual Representations (AVRs)1 – to verify the visual impact of proposed development on protected

views, heritage assets and townscape.

The Westminster Building Height Study (Urban Initiatives Studio, June 2019) includes a more robust

assessment of the potential impact of hypothetical tall buildings in certain areas and the assessment

modelling included using view shed analysis to test the visibility of buildings at a range of heights,

sensitive viewpoints were then identified and tested in the VuCity model and compared to street views

taken from google maps. Even with this greater level of detail compared to the TBS the Westminster

Building Height Study did not identify specific sites suitable for tall buildings and instead identified five

areas potential suitable for tall buildings. The draft Westminster City Plan policy also allowed scope for

proposals for tall buildings outside of the areas identified in the study.

In addition, the TBS conclusions are not based on detailed and up to date townscape analysis and do not

consider all potential impacts of tall buildings at the specific sites identified. This is highlighted in the

Strategic and Development Management Policies document (September 2019):

• An up to date borough wide-characterisation study is yet to be completed: ‘The Council has

1 Appendix C of the London View Management Framework: Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2012) states that an AVR must: ‘be prepared following a well-defined and verifiable procedure and can therefore be relied upon by assessors to represent fairly the selected visual properties of a proposed development. AVRs are produced by accurately combining images of the proposed building (typically created from a three-dimensional computer model) with a representation of its context; this usually being a photograph, a video sequence, or an image created from a second computer model built from survey data. AVRs can be presented in a number of different ways, as either still or moving images, in a variety of digital or printed formats’.

9

commissioned a borough-wide characterisation study to provide an up-to-date and thorough

understanding of the local character in various areas across the borough, taking into account a

number of considerations including relevant heritage designations. The results of this work will

be used to develop supplementary guidance on optimising development capacity across the

borough, to support various policies and allocations set out in the Local Plan. This may include

reference to specific suitable development typologies for certain areas or types of site.’

(paragraph 8.11)

• The TBS did not consider all the potential impacts of potential tall buildings: ‘The Islington Tall

Buildings study (2018) has identified locations potentially suitable for buildings over 30m from

a broader urban design perspective. The remit of the study did not include assessment of all the

potential impacts of a tall building on the neighbouring uses, such as sunlight and daylight

impacts, heritage impacts, etc.’ (paragraph 8.54)

Having regard to the above we maintain that the TBS is not, and could not be, sufficiently robust to

discount the majority of the Borough from being potentially suitable for tall buildings and it does not

provide sufficient information to enable the impact and planning merits of the potential tall building

sites identified to be properly assessed.

We maintain that the narrow definition of sites potentially suitable for tall buildings is excessively

restrictive and unjustified, particularly in the Central Activity Zone and City Fringe key area and having

regard to the site-specific considerations of the Castle House and Fitzroy House (BC48) allocation site.

It remains our view that it is far more sensible, given the strategic importance of Central Activity Zone

and City Fringe key area and the other key areas in the Borough, for the locational guidance to be less

precise, adopting a broad locational approach. This is desirable because it allows for flexibility of

application and for a thorough analysis of sites within the key areas should they be brought forward for

development. The range of other policies and guidance relating to design and form of development (e.g.

Islington Urban Design Guide SPG, Conservation Area Design Guidelines) would provide sufficient

safeguards in any event and would enable any change to be sensitively managed.

As outlined above a typical approach found sound elsewhere in London is to identify potential locations

for tall buildings AND also to allow/accept that they may be acceptable in other locations subject to

criteria testing and the policies in the development plan read as a whole. That plan, which includes the

London Plan, identifies areas of intensification, including opportunity areas, as suitable for tall buildings.

In addition, a restrictive site specific approach to tall buildings should not be used to prevent proposals

for tall buildings in other locations if, overall, a proposals’ impacts are acceptable and the balance of

benefits falls with the scheme. Otherwise the strict application of this approach would amount to an

arbitrary and unjustified restriction.

Castle House and Fitzroy House (Allocation Site No. BC48)

As highlighted in our previous submission, the details of the qualitative judgements that have been made

about ruling out areas and sites potentially suitable for tall buildings is not clearly detailed in the TBS.

Castle House and Fitzroy House were considered by the TBS as individual sites that may be able to

accommodate tall buildings: ‘CF-23: 37-45 Paul Street and adjacent sites’. Both sites were considered

separately and discounted by the TBS as inappropriate for tall buildings development as they were

deemed to potentially detract from the character and appearance of adjacent conservation areas and to

10

have a detrimental impact on a locally identified view of Wesley’s Chapel (Grade I listed) from City

Road. The details of the qualitative judgements made about the appropriateness of tall buildings at these

sites is not clearly detailed in the TBS and the TBS is based on insufficient information to enable

determination of whether proposals at the site could meet the criteria under part F of Draft Policy DH3

(Building Heights) and/or part C of Draft Policy D8 (Tall Buildings) and other relevant policy

considerations.

The allocation sites of Castle House and Fitzroy House have now been combined as a single allocation

site (Allocation Site No. BC48) and this has not been considered by the TBS. The scope for the site

(Allocation Site No. BC48) to potentially accommodate a tall building should therefore not be

discounted at this stage and should instead be subject to detailed appraisal to determine the form of

development that may be appropriate at the site.

Suggested Changes in relation to Tall Buildings Policies

Having regard to the above, our previous consultation response and suggested changes remain extant:

Draft Islington Local Plan: Strategic and Development Management Policies (September 2019)

• Draft Policy SP1: Bunhill and Clerkenwell: Our client is generally supportive of the spatial

strategy policy, which identifies the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area as the area in the borough

expected to see the most significant levels of growth, particularly business floorspace and that

this growth must be managed to secure a high quality and sustainable urban environment.

• Draft Policy DH1: Fostering innovation while protecting heritage: we suggest the following

change of wording to allow sufficient scrutiny of development proposals for tall buildings to be

considered on a site by site basis:

o F. Tall buildings can help make best use of land by optimising the amount of development

on a site, but they can also have significant adverse impacts due to their scale and various

associated impacts. Tall building locations must be carefully managed and restricted to

specific sites where their impacts can be managed through appropriate design.

o Suggested change: ‘Tall building locations must be carefully managed and restricted to

identified locations/areas of search where their impacts can be managed through

appropriate design and site specific considerations can be taken into account.’

• Draft Policy DH2: Heritage Assets: We suggest the amendments below to the current wording

of the Heritage Assets policy:

o B. Development within conservation areas and their settings – including alterations to

existing buildings and new development - must conserve and enhance the significance of

the area, and should be of a high quality. Proposals that harm the significance of a

conservation area must provide a clear and convincing justification for the harm,

commensurate to the level of harm proposed. Substantial harm to the significance of a

conservation area will be strongly resisted.

o Suggested change: ‘conserve or enhance’

o Legislation relating to the protection of the historic environment is set out in the Planning

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 72 (General duty as

respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions) of the 1990 Act requires

that, in the exercise of all planning functions, special attention shall be paid to the

desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The

11

statutory provision is satisfied if development proposals preserve or enhance the

character or appearance of a conservation area. In addition, Draft Policy DH1 states that,

‘D. The Council will preserve or enhance Islington’s heritage assets’ and paragraph 8.5

states that ‘In order to successfully deliver new development which fosters innovation

and enhances the historic environment, development proposals must, inter alia…

preserve or enhance the borough's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their

significance’.

• Draft Policy DH3: Building heights: As detailed above, the current identification of specific sites

potentially suitable for tall buildings is not supported by our client and the evidence base for the

policy is considered insufficiently robust. We propose the amendments below to the current

wording of the building heights policy:

o B. Buildings of more than 30 metres are only acceptable in-principle:

i) on sites allocated in the Local Plan where the allocation makes specific reference to

suitability for heights of 30 metres or more; and/or

ii) within specific sites identified in relevant spatial strategy policy.

C. Each relevant allocation and/or Spatial Strategy area policy identifies the maximum

permissible heights suitable on the respective sites/locations. Any buildings proposed on

these sites which exceed the identified maximum heights will be refused. Proposals for

buildings of more than 30 metres are only acceptable where they fully satisfy the criteria

identified in Part F.

o Suggested change: ‘Buildings of more than 30 metres may potentially be acceptable

within locations/key areas identified in the Local Plan, subject to site specific

considerations, and only where they fully satisfy the criteria identified in Part F.’

o Designated views require a level of management appropriate to the potential impact on

the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate identified landmarks and heritage assets.

We therefore propose the amendment below, which is in accordance with London Plan

Policy 7.12 and Draft London Plan Policy HCS that state that new development should

not harm and where possible should make a positive contribution to the characteristics

and composition of designated views and their landmark elements. We suggest the

following amendment:

o F. All proposals for tall buildings must mitigate the individual and cumulative visual,

functional and environmental impacts on the surrounding and wider context, and fully

satisfy all the following criteria:

Visual Impact:

o II) Protect and enhance strategic and local views, and views to local landmarks;

o Suggested change: ‘New development should not harm and, where possible, should

enhance the characteristics and composition of strategic and local views, and views

to local landmarks.’

Draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan DPD (September 2019)

• Draft Policy BC3: City Fringe Opportunity Area: Our client remains generally supportive of the

policy, which encourages proposals for the redevelopment/intensification of sites with existing

business floorspace to look to maximise business floorspace provision as far as possible in line

with the council’s priority for the City Fringe Opportunity Area. The Spatial Strategy diagram

(Figure 3.2) identifies five sites where tall buildings (30 metres and above) may be appropriate

in the City Fringe Opportunity Area Spatial Strategy area. The Castle House and Fitzroy House

12

(BC48) allocation site is not included. This approach and the map identifying the five specific

sites potentially suitable for tall buildings is not supported by our client. We suggest that the site-

specific identification approach is reconsidered and that the scope for the Castle House and

Fitzroy House (BC48) allocation site to potentially accommodate a tall building is reconsidered,

having regard to detailed site appraisal and analysis. We suggest the following amendment to the

policy wording:

L. Four sites in the spatial strategy area have been identified as potentially suitable for tall

buildings over 30 metres.

Suggested change: ‘The City Fringe Opportunity Area is identified as an area potentially

suitable for tall buildings. Any proposal for tall buildings within the area will be considered

on a site by site basis and must be fully consistent with Policy DH3 and all other relevant

policies.’

• BC48: Castle House, 37-45 Paul Street; and Fitzroy House, 13-17 Epworth Street and 1-15 Clere

Street: Our client is generally supportive of the site allocation and does not dispute the identified

site constraints and development considerations. Having regard to the above, the scope for the

site to potentially accommodate a tall building should not be discounted at this stage and the

scope for the site to include a tall building should instead be subject to detailed appraisal and

subsequent assessment through the planning process.

In our view the integrated impact assessment accompanying the submission draft plan should have

considered the approaches advocated above as “reasonable alternatives” to the proposals in the

submission draft local plan.

Affordable Workspace

The restrictive approach to determining the location of tall buildings limiting the amount of floorspace

that could be provided on site, combined with onerous affordable workspace requirements, is likely to

render some future developments unviable. Indeed, the restrictive policies limiting the development of

office floorspace will consequently drive up office rental values increasing the overall need for

affordable workspace. It is entirely possible that reviewing these restrictive policies could also help to

relieve the need for affordable workspace.

Part A of policy B4 affordable workspace states:

‘Within the CAZ, Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area, CAZ fringe Spatial Strategy areas (Angel and

Upper Street; and Kings Cross and Pentonville Road), PELs and Town Centres, major development

proposals involving 1,000sqm or more gross B1(a) and/or B1(b) and/or general B1-use and/or a Sui

Generis use akin to B1(a)/B1(b) floorspace must incorporate at least 10% affordable workspace (as a

proportion of proposed B1(a) and/or B1(b) and/or general B1 and/or a Sui Generis use akin to

B1(a)/B1(b) floorspace GIA) to be leased to the Council at a peppercorn rate for a period of at least 20

years. The Council will subsequently lease the space to a Council-approved operator.’

We have a number of concerns with the draft policy.

Firstly, whilst we understand that the Council may be a competent landlord for such affordable

workspace, however there is no planning justification to preclude other appropriate bodies from

13

operating the space. The draft London Plan Policy E3 simply notes that “Leases or transfers of space to

workspace providers should be at rates that allow providers to manage effective workspace with sub-

market rents”. Charities and other such organisations or even developers / owners of commercial

buildings could also provide this space and manage them in accordance with provisions within S106

legal agreements. Indeed, the family business of which Capreon is a part, the Noe Group, also owns a

business, Goldacre which acts as an incubator space for tech startup companies. As such, allowing third

parties to operate the space secured through a S106 agreement could act as an effective solution to

provisioning affordable workspace and co-locating like-minded organisations.

Furthermore, with a targeted quantum of 400,000 sqm of B1 office floorspace over the plan period, the

10% affordable workspace requirement equates to 40,000 sqm of affordable workspace provision

overall. This is a very large amount, and we are concerned that this could lead to a polarisation in the

market. The provision of 40,000 sqm of affordable workspace could create a market in which the

majority of new B1 office offers in the borough comprise either affordable workspace, or grade A office

offers.

Secondly, the policy as drafted requires the affordable workspace to be leased to the council at a

peppercorn rate for a period of at least 20 years. From our experience, this requirement is likely to

significantly harm the viability of future schemes and increase the challenges of delivering development

in the borough. It is proposed that provision for a 10-year period would be more appropriate, or that the

rental rate is raised from a peppercorn rate to 60% of market rate. This approach is utilized by other

central London boroughs such as Hackney’s emerging policy LP29 Affordable Workspace and Low-

Cost Employment Floorspace. The City of Westminster Council take a much less prescriptive approach

to the provision of affordable workspace, with emerging City Plan policy 14 simply stating that the

Council will generally support proposals involving the provision of affordable workspace in the

borough. WCC prescribes no specific quantum of floorspace, nor the time period in which it must remain

affordable, hence adopting a much more flexible approach to its delivery in the borough. This flexible

approach will enable the delivery of office floorspace to remain viable. The draft London Plan also notes

a sub-market rent but makes no mention of peppercorn rates.

More specifically on the viability of schemes, the evidence base for the policy relies on the London

Borough of Islington: Draft Local Plan Viability Study (December 2018) for making the case that the

affordable workspace policy is justified. At paragraph 4.29 the document states Islington are “seeking

to secure affordable workspace in commercial developments at a rate of 10% of floorspace provided to

an affordable workspace provider at a peppercorn rent for 20 years”. The document summarises at

paragraph 1.7 that “The scale of reduction in residual land value varies between schemes, but in all

cases, the impact does not reduce the residuals below the benchmark land values”.

However, at paragraph 6.5 the document notes that:

“For office-led developments, all the developments tested remain viable after the 10% affordable

workspace is applied for a 10-year period, although site 17 becomes unviable if the requirement is

extended to 15 years and 20 years respectively. Some sites are unviable before the requirement is

applied and are therefore unlikely to come forward. This is because these sites have high existing use

values. All of the sites that were viable before the policy requirement is applied remain viable after 10%

affordable workspace is reflected.”

14

Setting aside this contradiction in the report, Site 17 refers to a modelled site (intensification of business

use) within EC2A of the borough. This also happens to be the postcode shared by Castle House and

Fitzroy House. As such, on face value, the Council’s own modeling suggests this policy would render a

large allocated development site in the CAZ and in the City Fringe Opportunity Area unviable. Given

these areas are exactly where the Council should be promoting such floor space, we would question the

soundness of this policy.

It is important to note that we have not challenged any of the inputs in to these viability appraisals and

have merely drawn these conclusions from the Councils own results which are likely to be more

optimistic in terms of lower existing use values and higher gross development values.

Additionally, it is unclear exactly how LBI will source appropriate occupiers to fill the targeted 40,000

sqm of affordable workspace or what is considered a peppercorn rate. For instance, does this include or

exclude Service charges and Insurance. These points require further clarification.

As such, it is considered that a relaxing of policy B4 would enable development to remain viable and

deliverable, which is key in ensuring targeted quantum’s of additional floorspace are met.

Summary

Whilst there is much within the Regulation 19 new LBI Local Plan that we support, including the targets

set by LBI for achieving significant amounts of additional floorspace across the borough, there are

several areas which remain a cause for concern.

Firstly, the tall buildings policy DH3 is too restrictive in nature when using a site based approach to

defining the location of tall buildings. This approach, combined with the highly-limited land supply

available in the borough (as demonstrated in the evidence base for the new Local Plan), will mean that

the full potential of development sites cannot be unlocked, and in instances where proposals accord with

all other development plan policies, they may be refused simply because they are over 30 metres.

Clearly, this is a highly restrictive approach which will depress the provision of floorspace, and will

mean targeted quantum’s of floorspace are simply unattainable. This will have significantly negative

impacts on the economic well-being of the borough. In addition, the Tall Building Study did not assess

the combined building and therefore cannot be relied upon as an accurate evidence base.

Furthermore, the affordable workspace policy B4 may also restrict development within the borough, due

to its current wording. At present, the policy represents the most onerously worded policy in relation to

affordable workspace in any London borough. The requirement for 10% of the overall amount of

floorspace to be made available at a peppercorn rate for 20 years could render some developments

unviable. Indeed, the Council’s own evidence base suggests office intensification within areas of the

CAZ and the Opportunity Area would not be viable with this policy in place. Given these areas are

intended to receive the most substantial intensification in the Borough, it would suggest the policy is not

sound as it would greatly reduce the delivery of floorspace required over the plan period and / or increase

rents.

We look forward to receiving acknowledgement of receipt of these representations and look forward to

15

participating fully in the examination of the submitted plan in due course. Should you require any further

information please contact Tom Horne or Nathan Hall of this office.

Yours sincerely,

TOM HORNE

Director

DP9 Limited

16

APPENDIX 1 – Regulation 18 Representations

Castle House and Fitzroy House - The Case for a Singular Site Allocation

The draft Local Plan demarcates BC48 Castle House and BC50 Fitzroy House as two separate sites

allocated for development within the draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP. Whilst our client is generally

supportive of the strategic aims for each allocation as outlined in the AAP, we would suggest that the

aforementioned sites should be combined into one overarching allocation. Predominantly, this is due to

the fact Castle House and Fitzroy House is the same singular 3-storey building, delineated by their east

and west wings. There is no chance one would be developed without the other, and now they have been

consolidated into a singular investment with one owner, this is reinforced.

Furthermore, our client has procured the site as one demise consisting of Castle House and Fitzroy

House, hence dividing the singular structure into two separate allocations is unnecessary.

Lastly, the development potential of the two sites combined is substantially greater as a result of their

marriage value thus optimizing development potential in line with the objectives of the draft Local Plan.

Given the significant quantum of commercial floorspace that Islington are seeking during the plan

period, these sites taken as one have the potential to provide that much more for Islington and its

residents and workers.

Meeting future growth requirements

In accordance with sustainable development principles, and paragraph 11 of the NPPF, development

plans:‘… should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be

sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change’.

Islington has a significant need for new development over the plan period, particularly new housing and

business floorspace. The draft Local Plan documents acknowledge that as Islington does not have a

reserve of large brownfield sites, the majority of additional floorspace provision will need to come from

intensification of already developed sites, especially in highly accessible locations, designated growth

areas (e.g. City Fringe Opportunity Area), town centers and along key corridors. The Tall Building Study

(pg 53) highlights that tall buildings, which meet site specific and policy requirements, can have a

positive role in contributing to this growth. They can deliver significant amounts of new floorspace and

act as landmarks at nodal points in the urban fabric, enhancing the legibility of an area and positively

contributing to the appearance of the townscape and skyline.

Chapter 11 of the NPPF promotes the effective use of land and highlights that planning policies and

decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements

for development meeting identified needs, while safeguarding and improving the environment and

ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

One of the key objectives of the draft Local Plan is that development should make efficient use of land

and fully integrate with, and relate positively to, its immediate neighbours and locality. This principle

ensures that regard is had to the historic environment and existing townscape whilst enabling sensible

evolution of character and facilitating new development (paragraph 1.49, Draft Local Plan).

Draft Policy B1 and B2 reiterates that proposals in the Central Activity Zone and City Fringe and Bunhill

17

and Clerkenwell AAP area which include business floorspace should make the most efficient use of land

to ensure that the optimal amount of business floorspace is delivered to maintain and enhance the area’s

role in supporting London’s strategic business role, while having regard to other Development Plan

policies and the specific site context.

Existing Local Plan Policy

Existing local planning policy for Islington is currently restrictive in terms of the locations it deems

potentially suitable for tall buildings. Tall buildings are directed to very tightly drawn areas within the

Finsbury Local Plan area only.

Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy is concerned with protecting and enhancing Islington’s built and historic

environment and states, inter alia, that: ‘Tall buildings (above 30m high) are generally inappropriate to

Islington's predominantly medium to low level character, therefore proposals for new tall buildings will

not be supported. Parts of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell key area may contain some sites that could be

suitable for tall buildings, this will be explored in more detail as part of the Bunhill and Clerkenwell

Area Action Plan.’

Policy BC9 of the Finsbury Local Plan is concerned with tall buildings and contextual considerations

for building heights and states that buildings of 30 metres in height or more may be appropriate only

within the areas indicated on Figure 17. These areas include sites identified in Policy BC2 (City Road

Basin) and Policy BC3 (Old Street), as well as an area adjacent to the City of London boundary at

Moorgate. Elsewhere, building heights must respond to the local context, particularly those contextual

factors indicated on Figure 17.

Islington’s Tall Building Study (2018) notes that the Council’s existing plan-led approach to tall

buildings has resulted in relatively few tall buildings being constructed when compared to other central

London boroughs (page 51).

Given the requirement for the Council to positively seek to meet the development needs of the Borough

it is welcomed that the Council has undertaken to re-examine the potential for areas of the Borough to

accommodate tall buildings.

Islington’s Tall Building Study (Urban Initiatives Studio, November 2018)

The Tall Building Study (TBS) forms part of the evidence base of the draft Local Plan documents. It has

informed the drafting of Draft Policy DH3 (Building Heights) and relevant spatial strategy policies.

The baseline study and its locational objectives are welcomed and reflect the requirements of the London

Plan (both existing and emerging) and Historic England’s Advice Note on Tall Buildings (2015) which

encourage a plan-led approach to identifying locations where tall buildings may be appropriate, subject

to meeting the requirements of other policy objectives.

The strategic search approach detailed in Section 5 of the TBS has enabled areas that may potentially be

suitable for tall buildings to be identified across the Borough, including the Central Activity Zone and

City Fringe (Area G on figure 5.5 of the TBS). The methodology and approach is generally supported,

acknowledging that much of the Borough consists of areas of relatively mid-low rise residential

townscape likely to be unsuitable for tall buildings and that areas potentially suitable for tall buildings

18

are typically identified centres, opportunity areas and/or areas with high levels of public transport

accessibility with a character that in principle could accommodate tall buildings and meaningfully

contribute to a legible townscape (as per London Plan Policy 7.7).

However, we consider that the assessment and identification of site specific locations potentially suitable

for tall buildings is less robust, overly restrictive and could unnecessarily hinder potential development

in the Borough. We suggest that proposals for tall buildings should be guided to the strategic search

areas identified in the TBS and then scrutinised on a site by site basis through the planning application

process and/or through more detailed site specific policy and/or guidance such as master plans or area

action plans.

The Sieve Analysis for each of the local search areas identified in the TBS is included in Appendix A

of the TBS. Key views towards potential tall buildings within each of the search areas were also assessed

and are included in Appendix B. It should be noted that these views are not verified and are based on

simplified 3d models of tall buildings that do not take account of the potential for high quality design.

We identify three primary concerns with the approach used for the TBS sieve analysis:

1. Design: As detailed in Draft Policy DH1, the appropriateness of development is dependent on a

number of considerations, a key consideration being design. High quality design is supported by

planning policy and provides a means of mitigating potentially adverse impacts. Design of

potential tall buildings has not been adequately considered by the TBS.

2. Verified Views and Detailed Site Survey: The views in Appendix B of the TBS are basic 3d

models that do not include landscaping or other existing details. A Google Earth London 3d

model was also used to consider the sites, but again this is not verifiable and does not take account

of detailed design. In accordance with best practice, and the Council’s existing and emerging

planning policy, robust assessment of the visual impact of a tall building is essential to determine

whether a proposal is appropriate for a site and its context. Applications for tall buildings must

provide appropriate supporting material – typically including detailed 3d modelling and Accurate

Visual Representations (AVRs) – to verify the visual impact of proposed development on

protected views, heritage assets and townscape.

3. Accounting for change over the plan period (adaptability): As per paragraph 3.8.2 of the Draft

London Plan, in large areas of extensive change, such as Opportunity Areas, the threshold for

what constitutes a tall building should relate to the evolving (not just the existing) context. The

TBS does not account for changes to sites within the local search areas over the plan period or

infrastructure upgrades/improvements. Therefore the restrictive site specific approach it has

undertaken is not considered appropriate and the TBS does not allow sufficient flexibility to

adapt to any changes that are likely to occur over the plan period, as required by paragraph 11 of

the NPPF.

We consider that the sieving process is too broad and general to result in the robust identification of

specific sites potentially suitable for tall buildings and lacks sufficient detail to discount such an extent

of the Borough from being potentially suitable for tall buildings. The TBS is a credible evidence base

that could be used to identify potential areas suitable for tall buildings within the draft Local Plan, but

is not deemed sufficient to replace the need for site specific assessment of proposals within identified

19

areas through the planning process.

Central Activity Zone and City Fringe Opportunity Area – Castle House and Fitzroy House

Section 6.11 of the TBS, highlights the potential for this key area in the Borough to deliver significant

amounts of development. It states that the area has:

‘The Central Activity Zone and City Fringe is one of the main areas for significant business growth in

the Borough due to its central location, high public transport accessibility (n.b: and this will be further

improved upon completion of Crossrail) and proximity to established employment hubs.’ (page 154).

The allocation sites for Castle House (BC48) and Fitzroy House (BC50) were considered by the TBS as

potential sites that may be able to accommodate tall buildings: ‘CF-23: 37-45 Paul Street and adjacent

sites’. The sites are in a highly accessible location and are considered to be under-utilised sites within

the Central Activity Zone and City Fringe ‘key area’, with scope for higher density development.

However, both are discounted by the TBS as inappropriate for tall buildings development as they were

deemed to potentially detract from the character and appearance of adjacent conservation areas and to

have a detrimental impact on a locally identified view of Wesley’s Chapel (Grade I listed) from City

Road. The details of the qualitative judgements that have been made about the appropriateness of tall

buildings at these sites is not clearly detailed in the TBS.

We consider that the exclusion of the potential for tall buildings within the local view of the Wesley

Chapel is overly restrictive and is not based on verified views or detailed designs of potential tall

buildings. This approach does not follow the London Plan Policy 7.12 (LVMF) approach and best

practice guidance for LVMF views, which states that designated views require a level of management

appropriate to the potential impact on the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate strategically

important landmarks and heritage assets. Thus site specific consideration of impacts on views, based on

Accurate Visual Representations, is required in order to determine the impacts of development proposals

and wholesale discounting of tall buildings within locally designated views is not considered

appropriate.

Whilst the TBS acknowledges in its methodology that Conservation Areas (CAs), and by virtue sites

adjacent to CAs, were not subject to automatic exclusion in the methodology (page 57), the assessment

of the Castle House and Fitzroy House sites and details of the qualitative judgements that have been

made about the appropriateness of tall buildings at these sites having regard to the adjacent CAs is not

clearly detailed in the TBS.

The Historic England document, GPA4, on tall buildings, does not rule out tall buildings from

conservation areas or other similarly sensitive land (e.g. settings of listed buildings). All that best

practice guide does is refer to the balancing provisions of the Framework at 196 and 197, as providing

one justification for tall buildings.

Having regard to the above, we consider that the narrow definition of sites potentially suitable for tall

buildings in the Central Activity Zone and City Fringe key area is excessively restrictive, particularly

having regard to the site specific considerations of the Castle House (BC48) and Fitzroy House (BC50)

allocation sites.

20

It is our view that it is far more sensible, given the strategic importance of Central Activity Zone and

City Fringe key area and the other key areas in the Borough, for the locational guidance to be less precise,

adopting a broad locational approach and undertaking a more detailed analysis of the potential for site

allocations within the key area to accommodate tall buildings. This would be preferable in other key

areas too, and is desirable because it allows for flexibility of application and for a thorough analysis of

sites within the key areas should they be brought forward for development.

The range of other policies and guidance relating to design and form of development (e.g. Islington

Urban Design Guide SPG, Conservation Area Design Guidelines) would provide sufficient safeguards

in any event and would enable any change to be sensitively managed.

Opportunities for refinement of potentially suitable locations for tall buildings could be undertaken

through more site specific policy such as Area Action Plans and/or master plans/Supplementary

Planning Guidance. Design codes may also be appropriated and, as per Draft Policy DH1, the council

intends to develop design codes for some parts of the borough to provide clear design guidance for

development in those areas.

Draft Islington Local Plan: Strategic and Development Management Policies (November 2018)

The development plan emphasizes that development should seek to enrich and enhance Islington’s built

and historic environment and also seeks to ensure that opportunities are taken to improve areas that

suffer from being poorly laid out through appropriate redesign.

Policy SP1: Bunhill and Clerkenwell: Our client is generally supportive of the spatial strategy policy,

which identifies the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area as the area in the borough expected to see the most

significant levels of growth, particularly business floorspace and that this growth must be managed to

secure a high quality and sustainable urban environment.

Draft Policy DH1: Fostering innovation while protecting heritage: Our client is generally supportive

of the policy, but having regard to the above, suggest the following change of wording to allow sufficient

scrutiny of development proposals for tall buildings to be considered on a site by site basis:

- G. Tall buildings can help make best use of land by optimizing the amount of development on a

site, but they can also have significant adverse impacts due to their scale and various associated impacts.

Tall building locations must be carefully managed and restricted to specific sites where their impacts

can be managed through appropriate design.

Suggested change: ‘Tall building locations must be carefully managed and restricted to identified

locations/areas of search where their impacts can be managed through appropriate design and site

specific considerations can be taken into account.’

Draft Policy DH2: Heritage Assets: We suggest the amendments below to the current wording of the

Heritage Assets policy:

- B. Development within conservation areas and their settings – including alterations to existing

buildings and new development - must conserve and enhance the significance of the area, and should

be of a high quality. Proposals that harm the significance of a conservation area must provide a clear

21

and convincing justification for the harm, commensurate to the level of harm proposed. Substantial harm

to the significance of a conservation area will be strongly resisted.

Suggested change: ‘conserve or enhance’

Legislation relating to the protection of the historic environment is set out in the Planning (Listed

Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 72 (General duty as respects conservation areas

in exercise of planning functions) of the 1990 Act requires that, in the exercise of all planning functions,

special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance

of the area. The statutory provision is satisfied if development proposals preserve or enhance the

character or appearance of a conservation area.

In addition, Draft Policy DH1 states that, ‘E. The Council will preserve or enhance Islington’s heritage

assets’ and paragraph 8.17 of the Draft Local Plan states that ‘Development affecting listed buildings or

other heritage assets (and within their settings), and/or within conservation areas, is expected to conserve

or enhance the significance of the respective areas’.

Draft Policy DH3: Building heights: Draft Policy DH3 has been informed by the Islington Tall

Building study (2018) and should be read alongside relevant spatial strategy policies. The policy

provides a useful and clear definition of what is considered a tall building for specific localities, in

accordance with Draft LP Policy D8 (Tall Buildings). It also provides the opportunity for the

development of tall buildings that will positively contribute to the Borough and the immediate locality.

Whilst it is acknowledged that policy and guidance encourages a plan led approach that provides a clear

strategy showing where tall buildings may potentially be acceptable and where they may not, this

strategy should not unjustifiably restrict potential growth nor be based on an evidence base that is

insufficient in detail to justify excluding sites to be considered potentially suitable for tall buildings.

As detailed above, the current identification of specific sites potentially suitable for tall buildings is not

supported by our client. We suggest that a more detailed assessment of specific sites is undertaken and

that it would be far more sensible for the locational guidance to be less precise, adopting a broad

locational approach, for instance a circle with porous edges. This would be preferable in key areas in the

Borough, and is desirable because it allows for flexibility of application. The range of other policies

relating to design and form of development would provide sufficient safeguards in any event and each

site should be considered on its individual merits.

We have outlined amendments below to the current wording of the building heights policy:

- B. Buildings of more than 30 metres are only acceptable in-principle:

i) on sites allocated in the Local Plan where the allocation makes specific reference to

suitability for heights of 30 metres or more; and/or

ii) within specific sites identified in relevant spatial strategy policy.

- C. Each relevant allocation and/or spatial strategy policy identifies the maximum permissible

heights suitable on the respective sites/locations. Any buildings proposed on these sites which

exceed the identified maximum heights will be refused. Proposals for buildings of more than 30

metres are only acceptable where they fully satisfy the criteria identified in Part F.

22

Suggested change: ‘Buildings of more than 30 metres may potentially be acceptable within

locations/key areas identified in the Local Plan, subject to site specific considerations, and only

where they fully satisfy the criteria identified in Part F.’

Designated views require a level of management appropriate to the potential impact on the viewer’s

ability to recognise and appreciate identified landmarks and heritage assets. We therefore propose the

amendment below, which is in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.12 that states that new

development should not harm and where possible should make a positive contribution to the

characteristics and composition of designated views and their landmark elements. We suggest the

following amendment:

- F. All proposals for tall buildings must mitigate the individual and cumulative visual, functional

and environmental impacts on the surrounding and wider context, and fully satisfy all the following

criteria:

Visual Impact:

II) Protect and enhance strategic and local views, and views to local landmarks;

Suggested change: ‘New development should not harm and, where appropriate, should enhance

the characteristics and composition of strategic and local views, and views to local landmarks.’

Draft Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan DPD (November 2018)

BC3: City Fringe Opportunity Area: Our client is generally supportive of the policy, which

encourages proposals for the redevelopment/intensification of sites with existing business floorspace to

look to maximise business floorspace provision as far as possible in line with the council’s priority for

the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

The Spatial Strategy diagram (Figure 3.2) identifies four sites where tall buildings (30 metres and above)

may be appropriate in the City Fringe Opportunity Area Spatial Strategy area. The Castle House (BC48)

and Fitzroy House (BC50) allocation sites are not included.

This approach and the map identifying the four specific sites potentially suitable for tall buildings is not

supported by our client. We suggest that the site specific identification approach is reconsidered and that

the scope for the Castle House (BC48) and Fitzroy House (BC50) allocation sites to potentially

accommodate a tall building are reconsidered, having regard to detailed site appraisal and analysis. We

suggest the following amendment to the policy wording:

- M. Four sites in the spatial strategy area have been identified as potentially suitable for tall

buildings over 30 metres.

Suggested change: ‘The City Fringe Opportunity Area is identified as an area potentially suitable

for tall buildings. Any proposal for tall buildings within the area will be considered on a site by

site basis and must be fully consistent with Policy DH3 and all other relevant policies.’

23

Other Matters

Strategic and Development Management Policies

Policy B2: New business floorspace

We support the general thrust of the policy, however, the current wording of the policy would preclude

residential use coming forward in Priority Employment Locations. Whilst we acknowledge the

importance of delivering employment uses in the Priority Employment Locations, residential use can

act as enabling development providing value to deliver new and improved employment floorspace and

create mixed and balanced communities.

The current approach to this policy is not considered to be consistent with the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) which states that,

“planning policies should encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including

through mixed use schemes…”

and

“promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help

to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used

more effectively…”

There should be a recognition that not all uses within these locations are optimally located, and that

flexibility should be allowed to reflect the precise nature of the existing uses and the site circumstances.

Policy B4: Affordable Workspace

Part A of the policy states that,

Within the CAZ, Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP area, CAZ fringe spatial strategy areas (Angel and Upper

Street; and Kings Cross and Pentonville Road), Priority Employment Locations and Town Centres,

major development proposals for employment floorspace (those involving 1,000sqm or more gross B-

use floorspace) must incorporate at least 10% affordable workspace (as a proportion of overall gross B-

use floorspace) to be leased to the council at a peppercorn rate for a period of at least 20 years. The

council will subsequently lease the space to a council-approved operator.

There is a concern that the amount of affordable workspace required and the requisite rent levels of the

affordable workspace is not justified or based on proportionate evidence, as required by Paragraph 35

of the NPPF.

Whilst we understand that the Council is a competent landlord for such affordable workspace, it does

not preclude a third party operating the space. Charities and other such organisations or even developers

/ owners of commercial buildings could also provide this space and manage them in accordance with

provisions within S106 legal agreements.

The draft wording requires the affordable workspace to be leased to the council at a peppercorn rate for

a period of at least 20 years. From our experience, this requirement is likely to significantly harm the

viability of future schemes and place severe risk on the deliverability of developments in the borough.

It is proposed that provision for a 10-year period would be more appropriate.

24

There are a number of changes that could be made to address this policy, ranging from softening the

approach above to a complete review of the policy. We understand that affordable workspace policy is

becoming more prevalent in Local Plans and indeed the draft London Plan however the evidence that

such space is successful is scarce. We would suggest that in this instance, the policy could be revised to

reflect a viability tested proportion of floorspace with a 10% target.

Summary

In summary, there is much in the draft Local Plan that we support, in particularly the recognition that

densification is essential to meet that targets Islington have set for themselves in the Plan. Our client is

very excited about the development potential of Fitzroy House and Castle House and the aspirations for

the Site align closely with Islington. However, of particular note, we believe the review of tall building

locations may have missed some opportunities. We would welcome further discussions on our site to

demonstrate that there is absolutely some opportunity for height over 30m. Importantly, we are one

example of where this policy may be working against the stated targets for additional floorspace.

Furthermore, we have concerns over the new business floorspace and affordable workspace policies

which could prevent mixed and balanced communities or potentially curtail development entirely.

We look forward to receiving acknowledgement of receipt of these representations and request that we

be notified of further opportunities to comment on the draft plan accordingly. Should you require any

further information please contact Tom Horne or Nathan Hall of this office.

DP9 Limited