Councillors said scheme鈥檚 鈥渢enuous鈥� community benefits did not justify proposed two-storey roof extension
Make Architects is facing another delay on a major project following Islington council鈥檚 vote to defer a decision on a redevelopment scheme near the Barbican.
Councillors voted to kick the 48 Chiswell Scheme into the long grass due to an 鈥渆gregious鈥� failure to meet a range of planning policies including Islington鈥檚 tall building policy.
Representatives from Make were told to go back to the drawing board and remove the top storey of the scheme, which proposed a two-storey roof extension on top of an existing building which is already considered to be at the height limit for the area.
Make is also currently waiting for a High Court decision on the 拢500m redevelopment of ITV Studios, which has been beset by a series of planning wrangles since it was first put on ice by the secretary of state more than two years ago.
The 48 Chiswell Street scheme, designed for Berkeley Estate Asset Management, is proposing the partial demolition and refurbishment of a 1980s office on the fringe of the City of London.
It had been recommended for approval ahead of yesterday鈥檚 planning committee meeting, with Islington鈥檚 planning officers arguing a breach of the area鈥檚 policy on tall buildings was outweighed by the scheme鈥檚 鈥渉igh quality architecture鈥� and a range of community benefits, including affordable workspace.
But while committee chair Martin Klute said the scheme was 鈥渆xciting鈥� and welcomed the retention of the existing building鈥檚 structural frame, he described its claimed community benefits as 鈥渢enuous鈥�.
Of particular concern as a purported mitigating factor for the height policy breach was the proposed affordable workspace, which was not considered to be 鈥減articularly lettable鈥� because it was located in the site鈥檚 basement, Klute said.
鈥淭he additional benefits that this [proposal] grants鈥�.seem very vague and ill thought through,鈥� he said.
>> See also: High Court decision on 拢500m ITV Studios redevelopment due by end of next month
鈥淭he committee is used to having projects of that sort linked to the building closely described, valued and knitted into the purpose and function of the building. This all seems very tenuous.鈥�
The height of the proposals had been consistently criticised by Islington鈥檚 design review panel and by the Greater London Authority throughout the pre-application process in comments described by Klute as 鈥渧ery pointed and clear鈥�.
He said: 鈥満蒙壬鶷V heights are always being significantly challenged by developers trying to gain extra height, and in other cases where we have allowed extra height, this has always been coupled with a balance of exceptionality鈥�.
Councillor Paul Convery added: 鈥淲hen a building proposal is significantly non compliant we want to see something that significantly knocks our socks off, that really is exceptional, that really does tilt that balance of harm by a very significant package of benefits, and to be honest I don鈥檛 think that is what鈥檚 available here鈥�.
Councillor Toby North called for the scheme to be reduced in height, adding 鈥淚 can鈥檛 see any justification for the egregious failure to meet a number of policies鈥�.
The submitted scheme would have seen a comprehensive overhaul of the existing 1987 building, including the demolition of its prominent pentagonal entrance tower, replacement of external facades and adjustments to internal layouts.
The project team includes cost consultant Turner & Townsend Alinea, project manager Blackburn, structural engineer Elliott Wood, planning consultant Gerald Eve and landscape architect Townshends.
Make and Berkeley Estate Asset Management have been contacted for comment.
No comments yet