An architect’s drawing of how the property in Margery Street would look

A PROPOSAL to demolish a building that formerly housed the Children’s Society headquarters in Clerkenwell has been rejected for the third time.

In a meeting at the Town Hall on Tuesday, planning chiefs refused the scheme brought by applicants Royal UK Properties III Ltd to demolish the current two-storey building in Margery Street, called Edward Rudolf House.

It was turned down on the grounds the plans to double the building’s size could block out up to 50 per cent of daylight and sunlight to some neighbouring homes in Bagnigge House, St Anne’s House and 17-23 Attneave Street, according to documents.

Council officers had already advised the committee to reject the scheme for the building, which started life as a multi-storey car park.

The final decision now rests with the Planning Inspectorate, due to meet in September, after the applicants appealed the decision.

The existing, two-story building

The Children’s Society sold the premises for £17million in 2019 after 33 years at the building, and it has stood empty ever since as planning tussles raged on. In 2020 Islington rejected initial proposals to demolish the building, before the Planning Inspectorate also refused the applicants on appeal in 2022.

Quoting the Mount Pleasant Neighbourbood Forum, a council document states: “Current proposals do not address one of the main reasons for upholding the rejection of the previous scheme by the appeal inspector, namely the extreme loss of sunlight and daylight for residents neighbouring the site. The appeal inspector took the time to visit some of the impacted residences and confirmed the unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight (up to 50 per cent for some).”

Cllr Paul Convery and Cllr Martin Klute

Both the Margery Residents and Tenants Association, and the Wilmington Square Society spoke at Tuesday’s meeting to register their objections.

Councillor Paul Convery had harsh words for the applicant – who wasn’t present – after they “walked away” before a deal between the two had been struck.

“This is a highly confrontational way of dealing with the local planning authority,” he said. “To have engaged in constructive, meaningful and presumably purposeful negotiations and then they just walk away and hope they might get better results going to a planning inspector – which of course on the first iteration turned out to not be correct.”

Fellow veteran planning councillor Martin Klute agreed.

“As a planning authority I think we do pride ourselves on negotiating fairly with applicants,” he said.

“I like to try and keep the ball in play, so to suddenly cut off from negotiations at that point when officers felt we were getting close to what could have been an agreed solution is very heavy handed and confrontational.”

Despite two phone conversations, two emails and one text, the agents, Rok Planning, did not respond to the Tribune’s requests to comment at the time of going to press.