Willoughby House Group

Guidance Note 9 October 2017
21 Moorfields – Daylight/Sunlight and Rights to Light Issues
This note is written by Point 2 Surveyors in response to a number of queries raised at a recent meeting between the Barbican Association, Landsec and their design team as of 23rd August 2017.
We understand the queries raised are as follows:
• The difference between a Rights of Light Assessment vs. a Daylight and Sunlight
Assessment for planning purposes;
• The process with regard to Rights to Light discussions; and
• Whether details of properties affected by rights of light claims can be released.
Each of these queries is addressed in turn below.

The Difference between a Rights to Light Assessment vs. a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment
‘Right to Light Assessments’ and ‘Daylight and Sunlight Assessment’ are often confused, but they are different assessments and considered separately.
Firstly, daylight and sunlight is a planning matter only. Daylight and sunlight assessments are submitted and assessed as part of a Planning Application process having regard to the Local Councils’ planning policy and the advice and recommendations set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) report entitled ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice’ (often referred to as the “BRE guidelines”). The impact on the Daylight and Sunlight conditions of a proposal is assessed on individual properties and affected owners can make representations on planning grounds in the usual way.
In contrast, a right to light is a private legal right which is entirely independent from the planning application. The calculation of impact is also different from the Daylight and Sunlight assessments. Another difference is that rights to light is a matter which can be dealt with either pre-or post planning.

The Process for Rights to Light Discussions
During the design process, we have been advising Landsec on which flats are likely to be affected. We have based our assessments on the standard rights to light calculation. This calculates what area of the working plane within a room can enjoy 1 lumen of light directly from the sky in the proposed and existing conditions.
As the decision to whether an injury occurs is dependent on what area of the room can receive adequate light, the size or depth of room can influence our decision. If two rooms are next to each other but one is deeper than the other (as is the case for some of the Barbican flats) the larger room may experience an actionable injury and smaller one may not. This is because the depth to which the natural light will penetrate each room is the same but the deeper room will be lit to a lower % than the shallower room. This is likely to be one of the reasons why some residents have been contacted and their neighbours have not.
Where we have identified a potential actionable injury, we have written to the owners requesting access and, if the measured results have confirmed our initial results we have looked to seek a settlement for the release of their rights to light. Over the course of our work since 2014 we have issued three sets of letters as each scheme option has been designed. We issued the first set of letters based on the original planning application massing in September 2014. Further letters were then sent to some of the other flat owners, based on the approved MMA scheme, in June 2016. The final set of letters based on the proposed new scheme option were issued in June 2017. We have received responses to all of the letters we have sent except 8. Letters have been sent to the flats directly and any alternative address listed on the title document for that flat. Where responses have not been received, we have typically sent reminders every 2 or 3 weeks. We have now had access into a good number of flats along the elevation of the Barbican facing the site and found that the rooms are all very similar in size depending on the flat type. We are therefore confident that our initial assessments (without having access into every flat) are correct.

Whether details of properties affected by rights of light claims can be released
The existence and content of negotiations, to secure a release of any actionable rights to light is, by its very nature, confidential as is the extent and identity of affected properties.
However, although we cannot provide details of all those properties that are likely to experience a right to light injury for this reason, rest assured that we have written to the owners of all the flats likely to experience an actionable rights to light injury as a result of the latest proposal with a view to engaging with them on the scope for a possible release. Therefore, if you have not received a letter we consider that your flat will not experience an actionable injury. However, if any residents are unsure, we suggest they get in touch with Jonathan Alabaster at Landsec (Tel. 020 7024 3896) for
confirmation.
We hope the above is useful, yet if anyone were to have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us using the following details:
Andrew Cartmell Director Point 2 Surveyors Ltd. andrew.cartmell@point2surveyors.com Tel: 020 7759 0185

We will hold a party jointly with Speed in the Barbican Kitchen from 6-8pm.

Drinks and canapes – £15 per head, children free!

Here are notes of meetings held recently with both Landsecs (21 Moorfields) and Multiplex/Brookfield (1 London Wall Place)

21 Moorfields

On 11th October Helen Kay and Hilary Sunman met with Ross Sayers of Land Securities to discuss the new proposals and express concern about the proposed access point in Moor Lane. We followed this up with a letter on 17th October setting out residents’ concerns:

‘ The residents are keen for this development to be completed with such a prestigious let, and are pleased with the reassurances over access to the station, a minimum of light spillage, the lowering of the west building, the use of the terraces and a small piazza. However, the proposal for a servicing entrance will be contentious for the following very good reasons.

The noise and disturbance of 80 lorries a day with a security gate being opened and closed does not sit well with the duty the Corporation of London has in its Local Plan for Residential Amenity (Policy DM 21.3). If such a change is granted on this narrow street with its acoustic peculiarities, the 200 bedrooms, 142 apartments, the young families and numerous people working from home then it would not say much for Residential Amenity.

The greening of Moor Lane has been in the Local Plan for some time and has been postponed due to the many developments in the area. You will have seen the plans for wide pavements, rows of trees, planting of beds and also the quiet cycle highway. The planning for this was carefully thought out with much consultation and the funding is even in place, ready to go as soon as 21 Moorfields is complete.

Finally, the cycle highway system is a really good scheme for getting people out of cars and safe on the streets. They are popular and very busy at the start and end of the working day. Lorries cutting across a major north south cycle route at these times will not be safe.

In our meeting with the Chief Planning Officer at the Guildhall, we were assured that as far as the Highways and Traffic assessment is concerned the analysis carried out in February 2015 stands, with its recommendation that with good systems in place another servicing entrance on Fore Street Avenue is manageable. You say that Deutsche Bank has these systems in place so there should not be a problem.

When we looked at the plans with you at our meeting last week it did seem possible to move the UKPN site, as was the plan in the consented scheme, thereby allowing access to the servicing area from Fore Street Avenue and you said your team was working on that.

There were over 100 objections to an application for Wagamama to have a door to the restaurant on Moor Lane. We had a dialogue with the company and eventually they understood the impact this would have on their neighbours and they withdrew the application. We believe that there will be this level of objection if not more to your application for a servicing entrance on Moor Lane. The 2000 flats in the Barbican will want to protect their ‘buffer’ streets.

We can only hope that Deutsche Bank really does want to be a good neighbour and that the servicing entrance reverts to the consented scheme. We can then look forward to the quiet ‘greened’ street that we have been promised’.

On 27th October Ross Sayer replied with the following response:

Following the public consultations and our subsequent discussions, we have been carrying out further objective analysis comparing the appropriateness of servicing the scheme from both Fore Street Avenue and Moor Lane.

It has been decided that the Moor Lane servicing location is the most appropriate method of effectively servicing our scheme. This is due to a number of factors. We have previously spoken about the structural, security and mechanical and electrical service related challenges. In addition to this the congested nature of Fore Street Avenue in its current state is an undesirable pedestrian route without adding a further servicing route to this small road. With the addition of Crossrail and the occupation of London Wall Place, further pedestrian flow is anticipated in this area. We feel that this additional pedestrian flow, coupled with the additional vehicle congestion associated with an additional loading bay would lead to an unsafe and unworkable solution.

With the loading bay located off of Moor Lane, appropriately sized for the scale of the development, and set back 27m within the building, this can be effectively managed to ensure no vehicles reversing in the street and no queuing vehicles in the street. This location will also ensure that all vehicles approach the site from Ropemaker Street, keeping vehicles away from the South end of Moor Lane and Fore Street. We feel that this well managed servicing strategy is a more positive solution to the residents than adding to the existing congestion in Fore Street Avenue which, we believe, would lead to queuing traffic along Fore Street, and potentially Moor Lane, once both 21M and London Wall Place are occupied. During the next stage of design development we will also be reviewing the quietest method of providing access control and would look to discuss this further with you over the coming months.

On this basis we will be submitting our application to the City today.

1 London Wall Place

Liz Hirst and Helen Kay arranged a meeting with Tim Wells from Multiplex, Sharlene Rhoden and Matt from Brookfield joined us. They will be the asset managers for No 2 LWP and the public realm.

The public realm includes the high walks – litter, drainage, skateboarding and the lift. Brookfield will have 24 hour surveillance on the high walks to stop skateboarding

The café and restaurant will be opening when Schroeder’s move into LWP1 in July 2018

The high walks will be completed and paperwork to CoL for a 15 December Highways meeting – Kristian Turner is the contact. Then there has to be 28 days before the high walks are open to the public. Should be mid-January

There is a launch of the completed No 2 building on 9 November and 2 very large and lit rabbits will be placed in the ‘garden’ area and London Wall side of the building for 10 days

On current plans Schroders expect to finish fit-out of No.1LWP in July/August 2018. Until this time the rubbish collection may continue from St Alphage (while they continue to develop the gardens). Brookfield has suggested that Schroders put together a servicing plan asap & we’ll need to make sure that this complies with the planning condition to load and turn inside the bay on Fore Street when it is operational. Interestingly, Brookfield also said that the volume of deliveries coming to No.1LWP via Fore St Avenue was not so great as to make it unreasonable for 21 Moorfields to use the same street for their deliveries…..

There was a suggestion for 2 weekly fire alarms but they agreed to just have the one statutory fire alarm test. It will be on Fridays at 08:30 and will last about 2 minutes

We asked about light spillage; No 2 building will be fitted with Correx blinds on the north side facing Andrewes. This will make it easier for us to liaise over a management plan for closing the blinds.

This is something we would like on LWP1 building as no blinds were fitted on this north side in the design; we will be meeting with Schroeder about this

Mary Bonar will chair a liaison group for LWP2 and the asset management team, Brookfields. Petra Einwiller, Lionel Meyringer, Robert Barker, Richard Dykes, Nigel Pilkington and myself will be members of the group.

Helen will chair the LWP1 liaison group and will need WH residents to join her.

In the Barbican weekly catch up last Friday, Oct 20th, there is a survey of all residents about what we want from Speed Gardens.

Please do respond so that the designs reflect how we use Speed Gardens!

Remember the consultation and exhibition to be held on 26th and 27th September from 3pm to7pm. Jonathan Alabaster from Land securities will be there, as will the architect, Giles Martin from Wilkinson Eyre.

Land Securities introduced the new development to members of the Willoughby House committee in August, and a note of the meeting is below.  At the meeting there the architects presented the new design the main feature of which is four tradibg floors for Deutsche Bank which span the whole of the railway space below, and which has led to some changes in the overall massing. A number of issues were raised by WHG, and these are the main comments.

Main comments/ items of discussion:

• Pre-let – the fact that one main tenant would occupy the building was welcomed from a management and servicing perspective, as this is likely to reduce deliveries and provide for easier management.
• City Walkway – it was noted that the principle of two points of lift access to the Highwalk is maintained.
• Design – it was noted that changes to the facade design would be eastern facing only.
• Retail provision – the reduction in retail floorspace was welcomed.
• Rights of Light – it was queried whether details of properties affected by rights of light claims can be released, what the process is and when Landsec would be writing to affected residents. We said we would come back to you on this once we have spoken to our surveyors and would also provide you with a summary of the difference between a rights of light assessment Vs. a daylight and sunlight assessment for planning purposes.
• Planning conditions – a question was raised about how controls via planning conditions would be secured and how these might vary from the original planning consents in relation to the retail units and terraces. As discussed, Landsec would not be wishing to vary any of the conditions on light spill mitigation measures, hours for the use of terraces and hours of use for the retail unit.
• Light Spillage – concerns with regard to light spillage were raised and are duly noted. The proposed treatments to minimise impacts as shown within the original and amendment application will be maintained.
• Bridge – seating on the bridge may create noise and disturbance and therefore needs to be carefully considered/ managed. The bridge furniture/ hard landscaping should be designed to discourage skateboarders.
• Servicing – it was noted that the servicing entrance is to be located to the north west of the site from Moor Lane, and the reasons why it cannot be located elsewhere were also noted (e.g. it cannot be located at New Union Street as this is a private road and as a result of level changes, would not provide access to the building; it cannot be located at Fore Street Avenue as a result of structural issues arising from the need to provide larger floorplates for the tenant; it cannot be located at Moorfields as this is where the station entrance is located). There was concern about vehicles having to turn around in the street, however it was confirmed by the team that all vehicles would turn around within the building and the servicing area is to be located deep within the building to minimise potential noise impacts. Also, as deliveries will be carefully scheduled over the course of the day, and Deutsche Bank’s number plate recognition system will be in place, queuing on-street is very unlikely.
• Hours of servicing – it was noted that the City of London is likely to require that hours of servicing occur outside of rush hour. It was requested that servicing does not occur before 7am and after 10pm as there are approximately 250 bedrooms facing Moor Lane.
• Access barriers – it was queried whether the restriction/ access barriers would need to be relocated/ opened up, as a result of the proposed servicing arrangements. It was confirmed this would not be required.
• Terraces – the revisions to the terraces was noted including the fact that the nearest terrace will now be further away. The team noted that there are current issues with fire alarms being set off within other buildings around the area including on terraces, and that Landsec would manage the building to ensure testing would not occur at unsociable hours.
• Taxis – it was queried where taxis would be entering and leaving the site; the team confirmed that they would use the eastern entrance to the site.
• Current works on site – this was queried; it is understood that pile probing is currently happening on site but more detail would be covered in the liaison meeting in the evening of 23/08.