Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer (CPO) in respect of the redevelopment of the site behind the retained facade of 3 - 5 Ludgate Hill to provide a part five, part seven storey building with three basement levels for use as a 132 bedroom hotel (ClassC1) with Class A3 retail at part lower ground floors and part ground floor, with associated plant at basement and sixth floor level (total floor space 7,660sq.m GIA).

The CPO reported that 50 objections had been received across three public consultations from 28 residents and their representatives regarding the proposed development. The objections related to the loss of office accommodation and local retail uses, the proposed hotel use, the impact on the St. Paul's Cathedral Conservation Area, the capacity of the surrounding streets for the vehicles and pedestrians associated with the development and the potential impact of the development on residential amenity including loss of daylight and sunlight, loss of privacy from overlooking, impact on air quality and increased noise from construction works, and the operation of the hotel and its associated plant.

The CPO advised that the proposed development would result in the loss of 3,381sq.m (GIA) of office floor space. Office viability information had been provided in support of the application, which demonstrated that continued office use would not be a viable option on this site. This information had been independently verified by consultants on behalf of the City Corporation.

The Committee noted that the principle of hotel use on the site was in accordance with Local Plan policies, and the proposed servicing arrangements were considered to be acceptable. There was considered to be sufficient capacity in the surrounding streets for the vehicles and pedestrians associated with the development. The building had been designed to sufficiently minimise the potential impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in relation to privacy, overlooking, noise, daylight and sunlight.

An independent review of the applicant’s daylight and sunlight assessment had been undertaken by an external consultant on behalf of the City Corporation and demonstrated that the majority of windows and rooms in neighbouring properties would not experience noticeable reductions in daylight and sunlight. Whilst there would be some impacts on daylight and sunlight as a result of the development, the majority would be minor in nature and were considered to be acceptable given the densely developed urban nature of the site.

The proposed development was considered to comply with the Development

Plan as a whole and to be appropriate subject to conditions, CIL payments

and a Section 106 agreement being entered into to cover matters set out in

the report.

Mr Harman Sond, Mr Matthew Rimmer, Sir Brian Langstaff, Deputy Richard Regan and Ann Holmes spoke in objection to the application which they considered would have a detrimental impact in relation to loss of daylight/sunlight, change of use impact and residential amenity impact. Concern was also expressed in relation to the loss of office space and the effects of the demolition and rebuilding process.

Mr Richard Ward, Mr Gordon Ingram and Mr Stephan Reinke were heard on behalf of the applicant Dominvs Group

Several Members spoke in support of the objectors and expressed concern in relation to the relevance of the viability statement, the loss of office space and the impact the development of a seven story hotel building would have on the adjacent residential building at Lambert Court.

Other Members spoke in support of the hotel development which they considered was appropriate for the area, especially as redevelopment of office space in the existing building wasn’t viable.

Arising from the discussion, the application was put to the vote, the result of which was as follows:

14 votes in favour of the CPO recommendation

10 votes against

RESOLVED – That Planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with details set out in the proposed schedule, subject to:

(i) Planning obligations being entered into as set out in the body of the

report, the decision not being issued until such obligations have been

executed:

(ii) That officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in

respect of those matters set out in "Planning Obligations" under Section 106

of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

During consideration of this item, and in respect of Standing Order No. 40, the Chairman sought the Committee’s consent to extend the meeting to allow the item to be considered. He further advised that due to time constraints, and in order to consider the item fully, it would be necessary to defer all remaining agenda items to a future meeting. This was put to the meeting and AGREED.