Agenda item

100, 106 and 107 Leadenhall Street

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking planning permission for the proposed development of a tower comprising 56 storeys above ground level, providing offices, retail (ground floor), a publicly accessible viewing gallery and ancillary basement cycle parking, servicing and plant.

 

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director introduced the application to Members and presented the officer’s report, informing the Committee about the details of the scheme and its wider implications. The Committee was also advised of objections that had been withdrawn since the publication of the agenda. The application was recommended for approval, subject to the approval of the Mayor of London and Section 106 agreement.

 

Oliver Caroe, Surveyor of the Fabric at St. Paul’s Cathedral, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The scheme would cause harm and diminishment to St. Paul’s Cathedral, as acknowledged in the report, which was not mitigated by the benefits of the scheme, and there were development options easily achieved, for instance through a slight reduction in floorspace, which would not cause any harm. The view of the dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral, designed to be prominent and dominant, was being encroached upon and each application approved was causing incremental harm, which was not in accordance with essential stewardship responsibilities, shared values or adopted policy. It was felt that there were grounds to contest the officer’s report with regards to the impact assessment and the application’s adherence to developmental planning policies and National Planning Policy framework (NPPF). The scheme would cause harm to London’s greatest heritage asset and therefore any harm should accordingly be given the greatest weight.

 

Louise Newman addressed the Committee in support of the application, on behalf of the applicant. The scheme had been through a rigorous assessment process and the views of St. Paul’s Cathedral from Fleet Street had been key to discussions, shaping the building’s scale and form. Historic England’s policy on Protected Views stated that developments should aim not to worsen the view, and the application did not block the view of St. Paul’s Cathedral or change the silhouette. The impact of the scheme had been discussed with Historic England who had agreed that the application was appropriate and were content that it would not cause harm to the setting of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The scheme had been carefully designed to have a minimal impact on the cathedral, and it was believed the scheme was not harmful to it.

 

Members of the Committee noted that each application should be judged on its individual merit, and asked questions of officers. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised the Committee that there was no defined or formal methodology for measuring the benefit and harm of a scheme against one another. In this case, it was not felt that the intrusion on the view of St. Paul’s Cathedral from Fleet Street represented sufficient harm to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

 

Members of the Committee then debated the application. There was some concern over the lack of ground floor cycle space, the removal of short-term parking facilities, and the planned amount of retail space. A Member queried whether it was clear that substantial additions to the working population was an unqualified benefit, adding that additions needed to be sustainable, as overcrowding would make the City less attractive as a place of business. The Committee was advised that proposals to mitigate growth in the working population of the City were under consideration.

 

Members were sympathetic to the concerns over St. Paul’s Cathedral and wary of the need to protect it but felt generally that the scheme was considerate and did not cause significant harm or diminishment to the Cathedral. Members recognised that cities evolved and develop, noting that the City of London as a place of business was older than the Cathedral itself.

 

A Member queried the servicing plan set out in the report, and suggested that it be secured by conditions, as well as in the S106 agreement. It was also suggested that as the pavement around the site was narrow compared to other areas, consideration could be given to restricting or not using the Leadenhall entrance.

 

There was strong support for the scheme amongst a number of Members. The site was a key site in the Eastern Cluster, and the scheme met a need for developments to meet the demand for office space in the area. Members commended the quality and quantity of work that had gone into the scheme, and the elegant and attractive design of the building. The City was a key economic asset for the country and the scheme would demonstrate that the City was open for business.

 

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director then addressed queries made by Committee Members. Any ground floor cycle space would be at the expense of retail area which was considered to be critical to the area, where pedestrian movement was dominant. Officers agreed with the applicant that this would be appropriate. However, a nearby cycle-for-hire hub included in the S106 agreement, additional long-stay parking and bike parking for visitors to the building would help address the need for short-stay provision. Officers recognised the significance of St. Paul’s Cathedral, but believed the modest intrusion was not unacceptably harmful and was outweighed by the significant benefits of the scheme. The servicing and delivery plans were usually agreed by way of obligation and could be delivered either by S106 agreement or conditions, although usually through S106 agreement for schemes such as this.

 

Arising from the discussion, the application was then put to the vote amongst eligible Committee Members with 21 voting for and 2 voting against the application. One Member was not eligible to vote as they had not been present for the duration of the item.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)  That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to:

 

(a)  the Mayor of London being given 14 days to decide whether to allow the Corporation to grant planning permission as recommended, or to direct refusal, or to determine the application himself (Article 5(1)(a) of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008); and

 

(b)  planning obligations and other agreements being entered into under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980 in respect of those matters set out in the report, the decision notice not to be issued until the Section 106 obligations have been executed.

Supporting documents: