Jump to Comments

Consultations close on 1 December 08 (committee meeting to consider this application: 15 January 2009) on detailed plans submitted for one of Argent’s proposed buildings known as R2 or as the SAINSBURY building because Sainsbury’s has signed up to occupy the majority of the space as its HQ.  (Click here for map showing where R2 is within the development)

The Forum’s Planning Response Team has looked at the details submitted by the developer and offers the following comments which Forum members may want to use if they decide to make any representations about the application.

Nutshell description of the development:

This a very large rectangular office block with shops on the ground level (some described as ‘community uses’), located immediately north of the Granary buildings where the University of the Arts will be. (Both plan to move in the summer of 2011.)  It is a big, heavy block with 48,520 msq of building on a site of 7,600 msq. It has 10 main floors plus a basement, a small car park and 225 cycle spaces. 

Q1. Is this detailed application consistent with the outline permission granted last year?

 

Yes, it does appear to be consistent, being mainly offices with some shopping.  However the layout of streets and adjoining blocks has changed since outline planning permission was given. Consideration had to be given to why the entrance is in the South West corner onto Goods Street, when the obvious entry point is across the new mini-park to the West and up or down Cubitt Park. Also we question the need for two way traffic along East Street (to the West of the Building!) when the only use of this North/South route seems to be to service the vehicle entrance to the building, which entrance is actually on the North of the site.

(The cumulative effect of all the detailed approvals will need to be monitored by Camden and reported to the public; so also will the progress of the various Section 106 agreements and the various actions which are triggered when various amounts of development have happened.  We are not commenting on them here.)

Q2. Are there any causes for concern about this scheme?

Yes. There are seven elements which need attention based on:

1. Access: the width of pavements

2. Access: traffic in the surrounding area.

3. The street level and top treatment of the brick piers

4. Lack of wind turbines or photovoltaic panels on this building

5. Obscurity about entrances

6. Two-way traffic on all sides

7. Confusing street names

 

a. Conditions for pedestrians.  

The drawings do not show any street furniture, which is sure to be needed and will obstruct the walkways and there are no estimates of pedestrian traffic around the building. It is expected to house some 2,000 people. Planning permission should not be given until these have been detailed.

The block is surrounded by streets, all four of which are envisaged as carrying two-way traffic. Pavements for pedestrians which are about 2.5m to 2.2m – sometimes as narrow as 1.7 metres. (The pavement widens at one point on the west side, where some trees and street furniture are shown in the extended area.)  At the four corners of the block the pavement is cut off in a curve but the building is not, so at these four points pedestrians, wheelchairs, buggies and so on will be squeezed into less than about 1.4 meters in the Northern corners.  

This is all without allowing for any of the necessary (or other) street equipment, which tends to be planted in pavements: railings, bollards, signs, litter bins etc, for bus queues, bus stops and shelters, all of which should be planned for.  We are thus concerned that the environment for pedestrians will be mean and potentially unsafe – certainly not a pleasure to use; not any sort of model environment for the modern city. 

The Council needs to check this out carefully with disability/mobility access  groups and standards before approving the design and, even if the pavements are acceptable in those terms, we consider them to be highly unsatisfactory for users in general.

b. Access to the Building.

Access for bicycles and vehicles is at the centre of the North face on East Lane. Pedestrians can only enter through the South West corner. The building will thus be without an obvious focus and strangers may find they have to circle the whole site before finding an entrance.

c. Obscurity about entrances.

It is not understood why this layout has been chosen. It will drive users to walk along Goods Street, when the obvious entry route is up (or down) Cubbitt Park and then in from the West, through the new small open park. This would imply the obvious entrance to be in the centre of the Western face of the building. It is concluded that the entrance has been designed to provide a smoking area for the building.

d. Traffic-free Roads

All the surrounding roads seem to be designated with two-way traffic. It is clear that three side traffic is needed: to the South, Goods Street as a main route through the site and, to the North, East Lane as needed to service vehicles entering the car park and, to the East, York Street to service the commercial elements. It is not clear what function is served by East STREET down the West of the site.

The pavements are narrow and will be cluttered with the usual street furniture (not shown on the drawings). If busses are to use this street, the drawings must show bus stops, bus shelters and the effect of bus queues on free pedestrian access along the street.

The obvious solution is to make East Street traffic-free and move the main entrance to the centre of the West face of the building. This would make the natural entry point more focused and encourage people to enter the site past the R3 building, up or down Cubbitt Park and in through East Passage or the eastern element of East Lane 

e. Street names

Because of the integration of this block R2 and the elimination of one cross route, East Lane is a name which seems to define two discontinuous bits of street (or possibly a dog-legged street). This will be confusing to users. It is suggested that the western element of East Lane is renamed (East Cut?).

f. Energy Efficiency

Considerable information has been provided as to the energy efficiency of the building. It appears impressive and well in excess of Planning Conditions. Further information from the application on Engergy aspects together with the planning conditions. The Council should ensure that the claims made are substantiated in the design.

The only variation is a decision not to use wind turbines or photovoltaic panels on this building. The claim that this is the most energy efficient large office building in London is a big one. Will the Passive Design features (aka “passive chilled beam and displacement ventilation approach”) deliver?

 

g. Elevation Detail unsatisfactory

This is judged to be a very large building of ordinary (commonplace) design. In particular, the lack of imaginative treatment of the dominant brick piers is noted. There is neither design detail at street level nor on how they will be capped at the top. Alongside that it would help to have an elevation plan which shows the ‘cut-off’ effect more than their attractive artists impression of the roof garden does. For instance, part of the West Elevation at 75% or 100% scale. 

The only long view will be from the West. It is here that the lack of any interest in the elevation will be most obvious.

It is also noted that the cutback of the ‘green roof’ is on the North face. The plants will thus see no sun.

2 Comments

Filed under Planning applications