Address: The London Television Centre, 60 - 72 Upper Ground, London, SE1 9LT

Pre-application Development Presentation

Case Officer: Ben Oates

Ward: Bishop’s

Date Received: June 2020

Proposal: Demolition of all existing buildings and structures for a mixed-use redevelopment comprising

offices, cultural spaces and retail uses with associated public realm and landscaping, servicing areas,

parking and mechanical plant.

Applicant: Mitsubishi Estate / CO-RE Agent: DP9

RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation is made to the committee as this item is for a pre-application development

presentation. Matters arising from discussions during the item will be recorded in the meeting minutes

but will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker.

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations:

Central Activities Zone (CAZ)

North Lambeth Archaeological Priority Area

Southbank And Waterloo (SOWN) Neighbourhood Area

London Plan (2021) Waterloo Opportunity Area

London Plan Thames Policy Area

Protected Vista LVMF - Westminster Pier to St Pauls Cathedral - 8A.1

South Bank Conservation Area (CA38)

Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone 3

Lambeth Local Plan (2015) Policy PN1: Site 9 – ITV Centre and Gabriel’s Wharf, Upper Ground

Adjacent to:

IBM Building – Grade II Listed Building

River Thames Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SINC)

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area (ha): 1.04 ha

NON-RESIDENTIAL DETAILS

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (m2)

(Gross Internal Area)

Existing Not defined Offices and television studios 40,359 m2

Proposed E1 Offices 81,500 m2

Retail (Restaurant / café / bar) 3,500 m2

Sui Generis Cultural / collaboration space 5,500 m2

Total

proposed

90,500 m2

PARKING DETAILS

Car Parking Spaces

(General)

Car Parking Spaces

(Disabled)

% EVCP Cycle parking

spaces

Existing 105 Unknown 0 200

Proposed 0 2 100% 1,200 (long stay)

50 (short stay)

LEGAL SERVICES CLEARANCE

AUDIT TRAIL

Consultation

Name/Position Lambeth

department

Date Sent Date

Received

Report

Cleared

Comments in

para:

Susan Boucher,

Lawyer

Legal Services 04.01.2020 05.01.2020 05.01.2020 Throughout

OFFICER REPORT

Reason for referral to Planning Applications Committee (PAC): This item is a Pre-application

Development Presentation in accordance with the PAC’s terms of reference.

NOTE: A Pre-application Development Presentation is a presentation to the Committee by an

applicant about a development proposal that has not yet been submitted for planning approval. The

Committee’s terms of reference provide for the Committee to hear such presentations about

strategic development schemes and for individual Members of the Committee to ask questions and

highlight issues that may require further consideration by the applicant. Any pre-application

proposal that is presented to the Committee will still require a planning application to be submitted

and determined in due course. The Committee will not be making any determination of the planning

merits of any matters that are presented to it in this Pre-application Development Presentation and

accompanying officer report. Observations of the Committee in response to this item may be

minuted but will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker. The purpose of this officer report is

to provide a brief overview of the site and its planning history, the current development proposal, the

pre-application process to date and relevant planning policies.

1 THE DEVELOPMENTSITE

1.1 The development site is situated in the South Bank area in the north-eastern corner of the Bishop’s

Ward of Lambeth. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Queen’s Walk and the River

Thames to the north and fronts Upper Ground to the south. The IBM Building is located to the west

and Prince’s Wharf and Gabriel’s Wharf to the east. The site covers an area of approximately 1.04

hectares.

1.2 The existing building on site was the former home of broadcaster ITV until its departure from the

borough in 2018. The site comprises ‘Kent House,’ a 25 storey (basement, ground, 22 upper floors

and plant) office building and an adjoining four-storey podium. The building also includes six television

studios, offices, editing suites, staff and ancillary accommodation. A basement level car park is

accessed from Upper Ground, comprising 105 car parking spaces and approximately 200 cycle

parking spaces.

1.3 Existing vehicular access is provided from three locations along Upper Ground - the West Gate; the

car park access and the East Gate. The site also benefits from a private forecourt fronting Upper

Ground, allowing for deliveries and access to the underground car park and service yard. The site has

an ‘excellent’ level of accessibility to public transport (PTAL rating of 6B).

1.4 The site is within the South Bank Conservation Area, but not a listed or locally listed building. It is

dissected by the LVMF 8A.1 viewing corridor from Westminster Pier to St Paul’s Cathedral. Please

refer to the table under the heading ‘Site Designations’ for the full list of strategic and local planning

designations relevant to this site. The site is also identified within a larger opportunity site in the

Lambeth Local Plan 2015 (LLP), along with the Princes Wharf and Gabriel’s Wharf, but this is

currently under review under the emerging Site Allocation Development Plan Document.

2 THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 The IBM building, which adjoins the site to the west, was recently designated as a Grade II listed

building, whilst the Royal National Theatre (Grade II*) and a ‘Pride’ sculpture (Grade II) on Queen’s

Walk are also located within close proximity to the Site. Other listed buildings of relevance to the

Development include Somerset House (Grade I), and the Royal Festival Hall (Grade I). The adjoining

property to the east at 58 Upper Ground also neither contains a listed or locally listed building,

however Younger’s Building (the Neo-Tudor styled three storey building fronting onto Upper Ground)

is considered to positively contribute to the Conservation Area.

2.2 Southbank Conservation Area which extends to the west and celebrates a row of contemporary, low-

rise cultural buildings that front onto Queens Walk and the River Thames, including Royal Festival

Hall, Queen Elizabeth House and the National Theatre. These buildings are typically moderately

scaled with rich design that features sculptured and layered forms with a bold use of stone and/or

concrete and surrounded by high quality public realm that provide viewing opportunities of London’s

landmarks. The conservation area is unique for its inner London location in that its significance is

centred on the post-war transition of the area and buildings that are relatively new compared to the

nearby conservation areas on the opposite side of the Thames in Westminster and Temple.

Notwithstanding this, these contemporary buildings and the surrounding public realm along the South

Bank demonstrate state-of-the-art design and architecture for their time. The tall buildings within the

clusters to the east and west are typically set behind lower buildings along the river and are of very

different character.

2.3 The area to the south of the site is predominantly residential. Those immediately opposite the site

(Mulberry Housing Co-Op and Iroko Housing Co-Op) were completed in the late 1980’s and early

2000’s respectively and consist of 3-5 storey perimeter buildings containing flats that enclose a central

courtyard. Further to the south the residential properties are developed in the more traditional pattern

of terraced housing and this is heavily influenced by the Georgian terraced dwellings within the

Roupell Street Conservation Area.

2.4 The borough boundary with Southwark is a short distance away to the east where the OXO building

sits within Southwark’s Old Barge House Alley Conservation Area. Further towards Blackfriars’s

Bridge a cluster of tall buildings is emerging and a mixture of residential and office uses.

3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 1 - Aerial view of site (outlined in yellow)

Figure 2 – Satellite image showing the application site and surrounding sites

Figure 3 – Photograph of site from Queens Walk

4 PROPOSAL

4.1 Summary of the Proposal

4.2 The applicant is proposing a comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide up to 90,000sqm of

total floor space, which comprises:

• Circa. 81,500 m2 of commercial floorspace including collaboration / affordable workspace, a

co-working lobby at the ground level with function spaces and meeting areas:

• Up to 5,500 m2 of cultural / collaboration space: and

• Up to 3,500 m2 of retail (cafes and restaurants).

4.3 In addition, the proposal also includes circa. 3,900 m2 of public realm at ground level around the site, a

communal open space for tenants at podium level and new connectivity for pedestrians across the

site. This level of provision exceeds that of the extant planning permission on the site.

4.4 The applicant will provide a detailed presentation of the proposal.

5 Planning Performance Agreement

5.1 Mitsubishi Estate and CO-RE have entered into a Planning Performance Agreement plus (PPA+) with

the Council. The PPA+ secures an enhanced pre-application process with a greater level of

engagement. It consists of a number of key meetings:

• Meeting 1 – Developer meets Ward Councillors and planning officers to discuss the scheme

and agree consultees and community representatives to invite to subsequent meeting

• Meeting 2 – Ward Councillor and community representatives ask questions and provide

comments on the scheme

• Meeting 3 – Developer Presentation to PAC

5.2 There have been 20 pre-application meetings covering design, layout, massing, public realm /

landscape, employment and cultural uses, daylight/sunlight impacts, sustainability, and transport. In

addition, the following meetings have also taken place so far:

• 22 April 2020 – Growth Investment Panel (GIP) Meeting 1

• 18 August 2020 – Design Review Panel (DRP) 1

• 27 January 2021 – GIP Meeting 2

• 9 February 2021 – Ward Councillor Meeting

• 23 February 2021 – DRP 2

• 25 March 2021 – Meeting with Ward Councillor and Community Representatives

5.3 The feedback from the above meetings is provided in Section 7 Consultations.

6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 Planning permission for redevelopment of the site was granted in May 2018, comprising:

Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of two new buildings (up to 14 storeys and 31

storeys in height with two basement levels) for the provision of circa. 44,434 sq.m of offices (Use

Class B1), 3,634 sq.m of television studios (Sui Generis), 216 sq.m of retail (Use Class A1) and 213

residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated vehicle and cycle parking, access works,

servicing and landscaping (ref: 17/03986/FUL)

6.2 This was accompanied by an application for the adjoining site (Princes Wharf, 58 Upper Ground) for

the demolition of existing temporary structures (external staircases, portacabin, bridge links and other

structures) and making good to the fabric of the retained building.

7 CONSULTATIONS

7.1 Pre-application consultation has been undertaken by the Council as part of the enhanced PPA service

and separately by the applicant.

7.2 Design Review Panel (DRP) 1

7.2.1 The applicant’s design team presented the proposal to the DRP. Below is the summary of the Panel’s

advice:

• The Panel was comfortable with the proposed mix of uses.

• The sophisticated architectural approach is appreciated. The design of the workspace, which

was considered to be future proofed to changing working circumstances, is creative,

innovative and responds to the site well. Openable windows were appreciated.

• The Panel raised concerns about bulk and massing, particularly when viewed from Coin

Street, Stamford Street and Waterloo Bridge.

• The viewing platform was appreciated in terms of its use and public access, but concern was

raised about it projecting out rather than being stepped back and this should be tested further.

• The site was seen as permeable, providing worthwhile north-south connections, but the routes

need to be ample, attractive, legible and need to draw people in. The Panel considered that

the paths through the site may be too narrow and needs to be assured that they will work well

day and night.

• Concern was also raised about dependency on adjacent sites to deliver paths. The diagonal

path was welcomed however further consideration should go into the Hub space, particularly

dimensions and natural light. The function of the spaces should be considered further as well

as their relationship to other surrounding public spaces.

7.3 Ward Councillor Meeting

7.3.1 The Council hosted a meeting between the applicant and ward councillors. The applicant presented

the emerging proposal in detail and invited comments. No initial concerns were raised by ward

councillors and recommendations were made on which local stakeholders to target for the next stage

of engagement.

7.4 DRP 2

7.4.1 The applicant’s design team presented the updated proposal to the DRP for a second time. Below is

the summary of the Panel’s advice:

• Overall the Panel commended the design approach that has the potential to result in a high

quality development. The primary area of concern is the substantially increased quantum of

development over the previous consented scheme, which despite the intelligent design

approach leads to an overbearing and bulky building.

• The Panel acknowledged that many of the issues highlighted in the previous design review

had been addressed; in particular the ground floor was progressing in the right direction by

incorporating larger entrances and public realm to the north and south. However, there are

concerns about the location and character of the community hub entrances and whether it’s

entrance would be better suited to the north or the south location for increased visibility to

optimise pedestrian engagement. For example, in relocating the hub entrance along Queen’s

Walk the cultural offer would be more prominently presented in a way similar to other cultural

uses in the Southbank CA.

• The Panel see a tension between the covered hub as a collection of functions and as a space

/ route for promenade. The Panel suggested uncovering the space so that it is top lit.

• The Panel has unease about the seemingly narrow width of the east and west routes;

particularly on the IBM side where there are other challenges such as change in levels. The

risk with narrow routes is that they are likely to have an adverse impact on pedestrian

movement and flow and may not feel safe.

• The Panel highlighted the importance of the proposals interface with Queen’s Walk as a busy

promenade; it is important that the proposal works in relation to the flow of large volumes of

people along Queen’s Walk.

• The Panel suggested emphasising and celebrating the southern entrance point so that it is

clearly visible from Upper Ground and draws people into the hub.

• The Panel applaud the general approach to bio-diversity and are encouraged by the efforts to

secure a good urban greening factor.

• The majority of the Panel consider that the architectural strategy can produce a successful

building that fits into the South Bank. However, whilst the articulation of the massing is

successful, there are concerns that the quantum of development on the site results in a large

and bulky building which is overtly dominant in its context. The panel suggests looking at

options to reduce the quantum of floorspace - as a reduced mass would be beneficial in terms

of both the impact on the setting and significance of designated heritage assets, townscape,

and on neighbouring residential properties opposite the site.

• The Panel supports the approach to materials which generally relate well to the character of

the South Bank.

7.5 Meeting with Ward Councillor and Community Representatives

7.5.1 The Council hosted a meeting to allow the applicant to present the emerging proposals to a number of

key local stakeholders. The following groups attended the meeting:

• IBM

• BFI

• Coin Street Community Builders

• SoWN

• Waterloo Community Development Group

• Mulberry Housing Co-op

• Iroko Housing Cooperative

• Palm Housing Co-op

• St Johns Church

• LERA

• Bishops Ward Labour

7.5.2 The following questions and comments were raised:

Office Use

• Is there still a demand for office space?

• Will this quantum of office space change the character of the area?

• What is the plan-b if the office space is not taken up – i.e. will it be converted to residential?

Cultural Space

• Despite some support for the cultural offer in the proposal, groups asked for clarification of

how this space would function, who would be the anchor tenant and how would it be

maintained and managed?

• The identification of cultural production and consumption generators on the map of this

research suggests that the biggest creative centre is Somerset House. Doesn’t that accolade

belong to the South Bank?

Retail / Restaurant Space

• Is restaurant / café / bar the best use of the retail space in this location?

Design – bulk, scale, massing, form, architecture and materials

• There is concern that the proposal is too big, bulky, overbearing and burdensome. Concern

also raised that the architecture is not of high enough quality and will make a significant and

permanent change on the character of the area.

• Please clarify how the proposal reads as two separate blocks.

Design – public realm and open space

• Despite some support for the public realm offer (including 40% of footprint of site as public

realm), concern was raised that a lot of this includes edges of the building site. Can

dimensions please be provided and comparable examples of similar public realm places be

provided?

• The active frontages onto the Riverwalk, which is a rare piece of quiet, uncommercialised

green space on the riverside, has permission for landscaping improvements. Although active

frontage is proposed in this location in the Local Plan, does the proposed public realm fronting

Queens Walk conflict with the approved landscaping?

• The proposed pedestrian link between the site and Princes Wharf creates a tunnel that may

need to be closed at night. Please clarify this design strategy.

• How many of the 5000 workers can the various terraces accommodate at lunchtime? Will this

minimise the load on Bernie Spain Gardens and the river walk?

Design – verified views

• Will there be more visuals / verified views of the proposal available when it is presented to the

Planning Applications Committee (PAC) meeting? In particular: views from the south to

indicate how it relates to neighbouring residential areas.

• Please clarify how the proposal is smaller than those in the Blackfriars cluster when viewed

from Waterloo Bridge.

• Is there a physical model, and could it be shown during the next meeting?

Heritage

• Please clarify how the proposal is respectful to the special architectural significance of the

other buildings on the Southbank.

Daylight / Sunlight / Overshadowing

• When will the details of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts be available?

Sustainable Design

• There was support for the ambition towards sustainable design in the proposal. It was

mentioned that the design will minimise its embodied energy impact and further offset

emissions to ensure that the building would be operationally carbon neutral. Can this please

be clarified and a commitment to it being contained in the planning application?

Scheme Benefits

• Please clarify the package of benefits this scheme will offer.

7.6 Consultation undertaken by the applicant

7.6.1 In addition to the above meetings the applicant carried out their own public consultation in October

2020 and again in February – March 2021. To date the following have been undertaken:

• Set up of dedicated website https://www.givemyview.com/72upperground/news/sign-up-for-

the-upcoming-72-upper-ground-webinars/5f6cb1dc342c4700041befff

o This included a comprehensive community survey of over 1,890 people covering

workers, residents, visitors and business owners

• Distribution of two newsletters to 3,300 addresses within the South Bank and Waterloo area

• 22 meetings including with local businesses, groups, and politicians

• Four online consultation events that were attended by residents, workers, business owners

and resident groups (two in October and two in February / March)

7.6.2 The application’s public engagement consultant advises that almost half of the respondents said that

arts and culture was the most important feature of the Southbank, while sustainability was the

development priority for three quarters of people. Three key themes emerged from the survey on the

importance of the South Bank, they were: 1. Heritage & identity; 2. Location & atmosphere; and 3.

Public spaces. There is a consensus that the area should introduce and preserve green space and be

open and free to enjoy. Maintaining the South Bank’s clear identity is a key priority for the community

and many respondents noted that all development should be in keeping with the iconic design of the

area.

8 Key Planning Issues

• Land Use – the proposed redevelopment for an office led scheme (including affordable

workspace) with a substantial offering of cultural space and ancillary retail units is supported

by the Local Plan. The site is identified within a wider site allocation (SITE 9 - ITV Centre and

Gabriel’s Wharf), which encourages a mix of uses including B1 offices, residential and active-

frontage uses at ground-floor level.

Relevant policies: Policies ED2, ED3, ED7, ED11, ED14 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan

(2015); Policies HC5, SD4, E1, E2, E3, E9 and E11 of the London Plan (2021); Policies ED1,

ED2, ED8, ED13 and PN1 of the Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); P14 of the

Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

• Design and Conservation – The site is in a prominent location on the Thames riverfront,

within the South Bank Conservation Area and the setting of several listed buildings. The site is

also along LVMF 8A.1 viewing corridor from Westminster Pier to St Paul’s Cathedral. The

massing and scale of the proposal has been led by the protection of these views and in

reference to the surrounding context. The architectural form and façade treatment have been

designed to reflect the unique heritage context of the South Bank Conservation Area and

nearby listed buildings, which hold significance for the modern, high quality design of the

buildings and their relationship with the river and public realm. Any residual heritage impact is

likely to be considered to be ‘less than substantial harm’ based on an initial assessment by

officers and Historic England. The applicant will need to demonstrate how the scheme’s public

benefits would outweigh the harm.

Relevant policies: Policies Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23, 24,

25, Q26 and PN1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015); Policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D8, D9, D10,

D11, D12, HC1, HC2, HC3 and HC4 of the London Plan (2021); Policies Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5,

Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q24, Q25, Q26, Q27 and PN1 of the Draft Revised

Lambeth Local Plan (Jan 2020); Policies P2, P4, P11, P12 and P18 of the Southbank and

Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032); Paragraph’s 190 to 201 of the National

Planning Policy Framework.

• Neighbouring Amenity – Whilst there are no neighbouring properties to the north of the site,

the increased bulk of the proposal compared to the existing building is likely to have an impact

on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. This includes residential properties opposite

the site to the south. Officers have worked closely with the applicant’s project team to

understand the full extent of impacts to these properties, which has led to a reduction in

massing on the south elevation.

Relevant Polices: Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan and the Draft Revised Lambeth Local

Plan (2020) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

• Transport – The proposal would be car-free with the exception of disabled parking bays and

officers have discussed the logistics of servicing and deliveries with the applicant to uphold

the ambitions for reduced traffic along the Spine Route. Cycling will be supported by the

provision of long and short stay cycle parking facilities in the basement level and further visitor

cycle parking spaces in areas of public realm.

Relevant Policies: Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, T6, T7, T8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and

Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (2020); Policy T2, T4, T5, T6, T6.2, T7 of the London Plan

(2021); Policy P18 of the Southbank and Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

• Sustainability – The applicant is targeting BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ and WELL ‘Platinum’

sustainability ratings with these ambitions evident at the forefront of the design process. This

includes high performance façade design with optimised window to wall ratios, natural

ventilation systems, energy efficient materials, renewable energy provision, green / biodiverse

roofs and other urban greening initiatives. The site is also located within Flood Zone 3,

although it benefits from flood defences, and the applicant has been encouraged to improve

sustainable drainage initiatives.

Relevant policies: Policies EN1, EN3, EN4, EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015)

and Draft Revised Lambeth Local Plan (2020); Policies G1, G5, G6, G7, SI1, SI2, SI4, SI12

and SI13 of the London Plan (2021); Policies P3 and P5 of the Southbank and Waterloo

Neighbourhood Plan (2017 – 2032).

9 Next Steps

9.1 Officers will continue to work with the applicant to refine the scheme. The applicant is aiming to submit

the application at the end of June 2021.

10 RECOMMENDATION

1. No recommendation is made to the committee as this item is for a pre-application development

presentation. Matters arising from discussions during the item will be recorded in the meeting

minutes but will not be binding on the eventual decision-maker.