Agenda item

Proposal: Lloyds Chambers 1 Portsoken Street London E1 8BT

Demolition of existing building and erection of a new building comprising ground plus 12 storeys and 3 basement levels, including Class B1a office use, flexible

Class A1/A2 use at the ground floor, and flexible Class A1/A2/A3/D2 use at ground and basement levels associated landscaping works, vehicular access and other

works incidental to the development (47,262sq.m GIA).

Registered No: 16/00209/FULMAJ

The Chief Planning officer advised the Committee of an amendment to Recommendation 1 (to recommend approval rather than delegation to the Chief Planning Officer to determine), an amendment to Condition 34 and amendments to the Mayoral Planning Obligation Net Liability figures which had been tabled.

Mr Bernard Harris spoke in objection on behalf of Marlyn Lodge Management Co. to express concerns including regarding noise disturbance, possible structural damage due to the deep excavations, loss of residential amenity and impact of construction traffic.

The Committee received a late letter of objection from Mr Tristan Gielen on behalf of TfL    and he was given an opportunity to express TfL’s concerns which related to the relocation of the service access.

Mr Jim Pool, Mr Liam Dunford and Mr Peter Caneparo spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee discussed the proposal in relation to the concerns including the extent of adverse sunlight and daylight impacts, the BRE Guidance, and Local Plan policies relating to protection of daylight and sunlight.   It was felt that the loss of light caused by the proposed development, although noticeable, was acceptable within the urban context of the City. The scheme would also provide an employment led mixed use development which

would support the economic policies of the London Plan and Local Plan.

TfL’s concerns regarding the proposed service access being located at Goodman’s Yard were noted, but the Committee considered this an acceptable arrangement and preferable to Portsoken Street having regard, amongst other things, to the comparative characteristics of the streets, including in traffic management and amenity terms. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of reducing day time servicing impacts and it was agreed that Condition 13 (relating to servicing hours) be removed, and the servicing arrangements be provided for instead in the Delivery and Servicing Management Plan (“DSMP”) provisions of the S.106 Agreement. In preparing the DSMP provisions officers were instructed to consider whether night-time servicing should be required.

Upon being put to the vote the application was approved –

Vote: 26 in support and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED - That

a)            Planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached scheduled, subject to

(i)            Planning Obligations and other agreements being entered into as set out in the body of this report, the decision notice not to be issued until such obligations have been executed; and

(b)        That officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in "Planning Obligations" under Section 106 and any necessary agreements under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980.