Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking approval for demolition of the existing building and construction of a basement, ground plus 11 storey building for office use (Class B1) (16,084sq.m GIA), retail use (Class A1/A3) at ground (314sq.m GIA), restaurant use (Class A3) at 11th floor level (708sq.m GIA), a publicly accessible terrace at 12th floor roof level (744sq.m) and public realm improvement works together with ancillary parking, servicing and plant and all necessary enabling works.

The Director of the Built Environment drew the Committee’s attention to the tabled addendum sheet, which advised of an amendment to the recommendation in respect of City Walkway, corrections to the report, amended and additional conditions and an additional informative. The Director of the Built Environment then introduced the application to Members and produced the officer’s report, informing the Committee about the details of the scheme and its wider implications. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be granted.

In the absence of any speakers, Members then debated the application. A Member commented that this space was exceptional and would be popular. The view from the Monument would be obscured, but the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm. The scheme would also provide an alternative viewing point to the Monument, which was not accessible and was not free of charge.

A Member asked for further details from officers on freight consolidation. A Member asked for assurances that public access to the roof garden would be maintained, and asked if protections against later closing the roof garden could be written into the planning permission.

A Member said that they felt the application was well-considered and would provide extra commercial spaces at a part of the riverfront which would benefit from it. The Member asked whether queue management for the roof garden had been taken into consideration, as other roof gardens had proved popular enough to have long queues at street level. Members asked for clarification on whether or not the scheme complied with the London Plan, as there were conflicting statements within the report, and whether there were any outstanding archaeological implications. A Member questioned the opening hours of the roof garden, suggesting that they were limiting and could be extended to close at a later time. The Member also asked whether the scheme could include public toilet provision, which would be beneficial for the area.

The Director of the Built Environment responded to some of the points raised by Members, and advised the Committee that freight consolidation, public access to the roof garden, and measures to manage queues would all be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement. The Committee was advised of an error in the letter from the GLA provided in the report, and the Director confirmed that the matter would be referred to the Mayor of London if approved. The issues relevant to policy considerations were set out in paragraph 43 of the report. The Director of the Built Environment advised the Committee that the roof garden would be open until dusk or 7pm, whichever was later, meaning that the roof garden would be open later during the summer. There would also be two public toilets available at roof level. There were conditions attached to the permission which addressed archaeological concerns.

Members then discussed the opening hours of the roof garden. Some Members wanted it to be open later, to utilise the space. The space would be popular at night, particularly with the upcoming Illuminated River installation. There was a need to provide more public toilets and amenities, and this was an opportunity. A Member suggested that the roof garden should be open as late as the restaurant within the scheme. However, other Members felt that the current provision was adequate, and that management of the roof garden could become burdensome if it was open too late. A Member stressed that the roof garden was not public realm, but a publicly accessible roof garden, and suggested that negotiation of the opening hours be left with officers.

The Director of the Built Environment responded that officers had discussed the opening times with the applicants, and reiterated that under the current plans, the garden would close at dusk or 7pm, whichever was later, meaning that the garden would likely close at 7pm during the winter, and later during the summer. The roof garden would be available for private hire after these times. Officers considered the proposed arrangement to be reasonable but could discuss it further.

A Member asked for further clarification on the availability for private hire, as it was advertised as a publicly accessible roof garden. The City of London Corporation was encouraging roof gardens because of a lack of ground floor public space. The report should have been clearer on the availability of the roof garden, and should be open to the public longer in winter and summer. The Member suggested 9pm, particularly at the weekend.

A Member suggested that the opening times could be left as proposed and revisited later, and that there was scope for discussion. There could be flexibility in discharging the condition. A Member urged caution in pushing applicants on matters of this type, in case it discouraged applicants in future. The roof garden would be available during the evening under the current proposals. The Chairman added that he felt the development to be much improved and a great opportunity, and would support encouraging officers to undergo further discussions on the opening hours rather than trying to force the issue.

In response to a query from a Member, the Comptroller and City Solicitor advised that dusk was a fairly standard word used in legal agreements, but that a more specific provision could be agreed as part of the S106 agreement. The Director of the Built Environment added that finer details could still be negotiated, adding that the applicants were in attendance and had taken note of the Committee’s views. A Member suggested that sunset was also commonly used in legal agreements, and could be used instead as it came at a fixed time on each day.

Arising from the discussion, Members then proceeded to move to a vote on the recommendations as set out in the report and amended on the tabled addendum sheet, with 25 Members voting for the amended recommendations, 0 Members voting against the amended recommendations and 1 abstention. One Member had been ineligible to vote as they had not been present for the duration of the item.

RESOLVED – That:

(a) The application be referred to the Mayor of London 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);

(b) Planning permission be GRANTED for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule, the planning obligations and other agreements being entered into in respect of those matters set out in the report, the decision notice not to be issued until such obligations have been executed;

(c) That your officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in the report under Section 106 and any necessary agreements under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980;

(d) Recommendations (a) to (c) above are provisional and subject to prior notice being given of the effect of the development on city walkway, and to prior consideration of any representations received in response to such notice. In the event of any representations  being received the City Planning Officer and Development Director shall be delegated authority to consider the representations and determine whether or not to proceed in accordance with recommendations (a) to (c), subject to first reporting to this Committee should representations raise significant new issues not considered in this report.