Camden council has granted permission for DSDHA to add four storeys to the former De Beers training building at 19 Charterhouse Street, increasing floorspace to about 12,800 sq m and introducing roof gardens, a glazed street frontage and a sculptural ‘lantern’ at the borough junction. The approval departs from local policy by allocating roughly 19% of new space as affordable jewellery workspace — offered at a peppercorn rent in perpetuity — a shortfall justified by officers against the public benefits of activation, heritage-sensitive design and increased office capacity.
DSDHA’s proposal to add four storeys to a 1990s office block on Charterhouse Street in Farringdon — the former De Beers training facility — has been approved by Camden council, signalling a significant redesign of a conspicuously austere corner of the Hatton Garden area. According to the original report, the six‑storey building at 19 Charterhouse Street will be refurbished and extended to create new office accommodation for developer BNF Capital.
The permission allows the existing building to be taken from six to ten storeys, with rooftop plant removed and a roof extension beneath three stepped‑back storeys at what will become the seventh, eighth and ninth levels, together with a rooftop pavilion. The scheme will add around 2,800 sq m of floorspace to the current c.10,000 sq m building — taking the total to about 12,800 sq m — and introduces a series of roof gardens on the upper levels. A sculptural “lantern” is proposed on the top corner to mark the meeting point of the boroughs of Camden, Islington and the City of London.
DSDHA says the building’s previous use by De Beers as a high‑security training facility left it with an “austere and fortress‑like” appearance and little street activation; the practice’s designs therefore replace the existing façade with Portland stone and bronze‑coloured alloy cladding and introduce a new double‑height glazed frontage at pavement level to improve engagement with the street. The planning report describes these changes as central to the application’s aim of softening the structure’s fortress‑like character.
The scheme departs from local policy on specialist workspace. Hatton Garden policy requires 50% of new workspace in the area to be provided as affordable jewellery workspace; the approved proposals allocate just 520 sq m (about 19%) as such. That workspace is to be offered at a peppercorn rent in perpetuity, a concession that Camden’s planning officers judged acceptable in the context of the application. The peppercorn arrangement means the units would effectively be made available at a nominal rent rather than market rates.
Camden officers acknowledged the proposal would cause some harm to the character of the Hatton Garden conservation area, but concluded that the design’s stepped‑back massing and textured facades had reduced the impact to a level they could recommend for approval. The report frames the decision as a balancing exercise between heritage considerations, the need to activate the street, and the benefits of increased office capacity and new public‑facing frontage.
The project team assembled for the scheme is extensive: Morgan Real Estate is development manager, with Abakus Consulting advising on costs, David Maguire on structural engineering, Sweco on building services, David Bonnett Associates on accessibility, Newmark on planning, Turley on heritage, Momentum on transport and Kanda on communications, according to the planning documentation summarised in the report. BNF Capital is named as the client behind the proposals.
While the council’s decision clears the way for a visible transformation at a tactically important central‑London junction, the shortfall against the policy target for affordable jewellery workspace is likely to attract scrutiny from local jewellers and heritage groups mindful of Hatton Garden’s unique specialist economy and conservation status. The planning report itself records the officers’ view that on balance the public benefits — new floorspace, active frontage and landscaped roof areas — justified the departure from the 50% policy in this instance.
Camden’s approval is the most recent formal milestone noted in the original article. If you would like, I can obtain the council’s full decision notice, the planning officer’s report and any consultation responses from local stakeholders to provide a more detailed reading of the reasons for approval and any conditions attached to the consent.
Reference Map:
Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1]
- Paragraph 2 – [1]
- Paragraph 3 – [1]
- Paragraph 4 – [1]
- Paragraph 5 – [1]
- Paragraph 6 – [1]
- Paragraph 7 – [1]
- Paragraph 8 – [1]
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/green-light-for-dsdhas-extension-of-former-de-beers-building-in-farringdon/5137544.article – Please view link – unable to able to access data
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no evidence of prior publication. The report is based on a recent planning approval by Camden council, indicating high freshness. However, the absence of prior coverage may raise questions about the significance of the development.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes are present in the narrative, suggesting original reporting.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from BDOnline, a reputable UK-based architecture and design publication, enhancing its credibility.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative details a planning approval for a building extension in Farringdon, which is plausible. However, the lack of prior coverage and the absence of direct quotes may raise questions about the significance and sourcing of the information.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative appears original and is sourced from a reputable publication. However, the lack of prior coverage and direct quotes may raise questions about the significance and sourcing of the information. Further verification is recommended to confirm the details of the planning approval and the development’s impact.
