Listed building refurbishment at Crescent House Golden Lane Estate, City of London

What was proposed

The application proposed fire-safety works, building-services upgrades, external repairs, redecorations and associated repairs to Crescent House.

“CRESCENT HOUSE, GOLDEN LANE ESTATE, EC1Y 0SL The Sub-Committee received a report which recommended works pertaining to fire safety, building services, external repairs and redecorations and other associated general repairs at Crescent House.”

“The officer told Members that the proposal sought planning permission and listed building consent for works pertaining to fire safety, building services, external repairs and redecorations. He added that, alongside the need for general repair and refurbishment works, the main reason for the proposal was Crescent House being categorised as a Higher Risk Building under the Building Safety Act 2022.”

Minutes

The building and its setting

Crescent House is a four-storey building with commercial units, a public house and residential apartments within the Grade II* listed Golden Lane Estate.

“Officer Presentation The presenting officer introduced the application to the Sub-Committee, confirming to Members that Crescent House was a four-storey building, with commercial units and a public house at the ground floor, and 159 residential apartments across the upper three floors.”

“The Sub-Committee heard from the presenting officer that Crescent House formed part of the Golden Lane Estate which was constructed between 1958 and 1962 to designs by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, of later renown for the Barbican Estate and, since 1997, Golden Lane Estate had been designated as a Grade II* Listed Building, for illustrating the role Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s ideas had in the evolution of post-war architecture in Britain.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended consent subject to conditions because public benefits and the need to safeguard the building and occupants outweighed low-level heritage harm.

“It is the view of Officers that giving great weight to the conservation of this heritage asset, and considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the special architectural and historic interest and heritage significance of the listed building, the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset is outweighed by the public interest benefits associated with the proposed development.”

“Accordingly, Officers recommend that Listed Building Consent should be granted subject to conditions as set out in the schedule of the Listed building Consent report.”

Officer report

Consultation and conditions

Residents’ feedback led to amended paint colours and conditions covering repairs, design details, lighting, maintenance and further engagement.

“The presenting officer told Members that the strategy also sought to provide emergency lighting in line with current guidance and regulations, and introduced controls for efficient energy management. While an indicative strategy had been provided in the submission, the final details would be secured by way of conditions, including details of luminaries and wiring routes.”

“Members heard from the presenting officer that, since the submission of the application, the applicant team had worked to address the objections received through further engagement with residents, and by providing further information on the rationale behind the proposal, and making amendments to the proposed paint colours.”

Minutes

Residents’ views

Residents raised concerns about limited technical information and engagement but welcomed the strengthened conditions and supported approval.

“The Sub-Committee heard from [name withheld] that the applications involved significant interventions to communal spaces, which had caused concern among residents, particularly where information had been limited. She welcomed the planning team’s site visit and stated that the applications had since been strengthened through appropriate conditions.”

“The Sub-Committee were told by [name withheld] that the project was substantial, costly and disruptive, and that proper engagement was essential to securing residents’ support. She encouraged the Sub-Committee to take note of the conditions, particularly the informative which advised the applicant to engage with residents before submitting further details design elements. On that basis, [name withheld] confirmed she welcomed approval of the application.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A committee chair, the architects’ representative and a ward member addressed the Sub-Committee; no objectors spoke.

Members’ discussion

Members supported the application while stressing that overhead cables should be minimised and electricity capacity secured before gas removal.

“Debate The Chair, therefore, moved the meeting to the debate, and asked Members of the Sub-Committee if they wished to debate the applications before them.”

“A Member spoke to the debate and stated that she supported the application, as amended, and welcomed the care taken to address the potential impact of the proposed overhead service tray. She noted that this had been of particular concern to heritage organisations consulted and considered that every effort had to be made to minimise the number of cables routed through the overhead tray, with cables taken directly from flats to the basement or alternative routes wherever…”

Minutes

The decision

Listed building consent was granted in accordance with the proposal and the listed building consent schedule.

“Therefore, the recommendations were carried and planning permission and listed building consent in respect of applications 26/00106/FULL and 26/00107/LBC was granted.”

“1) Authorised the Planning & Development Director to: a. issue a decision notice granting planning permission under application 26/00106/FULL for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached Schedule to the report; and b.”

Minutes