Islington Council's Planning Committee has effectively granted planning permission for the redevelopment of Edward Rudolph House on Margery Street, despite their own resolution to refuse the application. The committee resolved that they would have refused planning permission for the proposed redevelopment of Edward Rudolph House, 69-85 Margery Street, had the application not been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
The application sought permission for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a four-storey office building.
The appeal was lodged for non-determination and was allowed by an inspector, meaning planning permission was effectively granted. This appeal process was initiated due to the council's failure to determine the application within the prescribed time limit.
Officers had recommended refusal due to significant concerns regarding design, impact on heritage assets, neighbouring amenity, and sustainability measures. Specifically, design concerns included the building's appearance, its impact on neighbouring heritage assets such as the New River Conservation Area and Grade II listed buildings at 21-23 Yardley Street and 38-39 Wilmington Square, and its impact on neighbouring community amenity, particularly daylight. Further issues detailed in Appendix 1 of the officer report included energy, sustainability, and flood risk, outlining ten putative reasons for refusal.
Regarding neighbouring amenity, concerns were raised about the impact on daylight. However, the Inspector, in a previous appeal decision, acknowledged that while some harm to living conditions through the loss of daylight was expected, it did not breach relevant development plan policies and therefore attracted limited weight against the scheme. Noise and disturbance were considered acceptable given the intended use and context, and overlooking/privacy impacts were deemed consistent with the extant permission.
While officers acknowledged improvements in the energy strategy compared to the approved scheme, the whole life carbon total emissions exceeded the London Plan benchmark. Condition 20 was recommended to ensure finalized details within an updated assessment were provided to meet the target. The urban greening factor was met, and the proposal was largely policy compliant in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability.
The current proposal also differed from the extant permission by omitting on-site affordable workspace due to viability concerns. A submitted financial viability assessment, confirmed by an independent external reviewer, indicated the scheme was unviable due to a deficit, preventing the provision of an affordable unit either on-site or as a payment in lieu.
Despite the officer's recommendation for refusal, the committee's resolution highlights a divergence of opinion. The committee ultimately signalled a refusal, had the decision remained with them. However, with the appeal allowed, the development is expected to proceed based on the inspector's decision.
