Agenda item

5.1    There was a brief introduction from the Hackney Council’s Planning Service on the proposed application. Initial proposals were to demolish the existing buildings at 4 Christopher Street, excluding the front façade of 56 Wilson Street, and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a building of up to 20 storeys. The Committee heard from representatives from the architecture practice AHMM, DP9, a specialist planning consultancy and real estate development companies EDGE Technologies and Mitsui Fudosan UK.

5.2  Following the presentation a discussion ensued a number of points were raised including the following:

·  It was noted that with the previous consented scheme the historic south west corner facades would be retained, however this was not the case with the current proposals. Solutions were available; setting back the building or having step downs but this would result in a compromised office floor space. The developers took the view that the public benefit of providing better floor space outweighed the loss of the facade. However, it was recognised that this still needed to be agreed upon. The Design Review Panel (DRP) had suggested that demolition could be justified if the architectural solution was of the highest quality. The developers could look at options to retain the facade, however, it was recognised that it would be challenging; the construction required to retain the facade would lead to a more carbon intensive approach. If the facade was to be retained, a small part of the floor plate would be affected;

·  The building was  currently used by the London Stock Exchange as a data centre;

·  The Trampery was a social enterprise providing workspaces, venues, training and management services and who had put forward proposals for the development of the Ground Floor plan area of the site. The Trampery wanted to keep its floor spaces flexible in order to cater for a wide range of tenants/companies and to provide the space quickly. Some tenants would have different requirements such as screening rooms or an event space;

·  The developers explained that having more than a metre of setback on the Wilson Street side of the site was not seen as more beneficial than creating a set of steps. It was suggested that a better balance was to be found by creating four tiers to the north elevation. One metre was not considered noticeable and it was felt that it did not change the feeling of the street. Reducing the tower element would have a major benefit and on balance the proposals were better at enhancing the street compared to the previous consented scheme;

·  The scheme was office-led. Residential housing was not part of the proposals. The proposals were in keeping  with the character of the surrounding area which was primarily offices;

·  The developers were striving for the best possible cycle parking offer for the proposals taking into the account the constraints of the site. To incorporate the proposed number of cycle parking spaces, 1150, two tier cycle stacks would have to be used. It was hoped over time that the bicycle storage facilities would be expanded which may result in some of the affordable workspace being moved further up inside the building;

·  The proposals would provide 26 short stay cycle spaces which met Greater London Authority (GLA) requirements but it was recognised that they fell short of Hackney Council’s requirements. The short stay spaces would be in an internal secure area.  It was acknowledged that the long stay cycle spaces, 1150, met the GLA’s requirement but did not meet Hackney Council’s requirements;

·  The developers recognised that offices would be different in the future, therefore the proposals before the Sub-Committee were based on a ratio of one person per 10 square metres. It was anticipated in the future that there would be an 80 percent drop in people using offices which in turn could see a reduction in cycle parking spaces. Hybrid working was now seeing fewer people coming into the office;

·  The developers confirmed, as set out in the s106 agreement, that an apprentice scheme would be part of the construction phase of the site, should the proposals be approved;

·  The developers stated that they were committed to the development of the scheme. Timelines for construction site were not yet confirmed, it was dependent on the planning process, but the earliest time construction could begin would be in 2024;

·  The developers had set a number of environmental targets for the scheme centred on the areas of embodied carbon, energy and water and drainage with a view to achieving those targets by 2050;

·  The proposed heating system for the site would involve passive ‘climate islands’ with a radiation-based system of heating and cooling. This was believed to be more comfortable and efficient. Air source heat pumps would also be used which was believed to be more efficient and more predictable allowing for better control;

·  Air distribution in the building would be through the floor and the building would also utilise openable windows linked to technology which  would monitor the temperature to determine the best times to open the windows;

·  With the green space element of the proposals it was recognised that there was a balance to be struck between making a pleasing working environment and also ensuring the building was in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.