Agenda item

1-14 LIVERPOOL STREET AND 11-12 BLOMFIELD STREET, LONDON, EC2M 7AW

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding demolition of the existing building and over site development to provide a 10 storey building for office use (Class B1) (24,134sq.m GIA) with retail floorspace (Class A1-A4) at ground floor (615 sq.m GIA), roof plant and two levels of partial basement.

 

Officers introduced the report and underlined that the site in question was heavily compromised due to nearby Crossrail infrastructure. Members were also informed that the site would require servicing on-street. The Committee were shown views of the site from various different perspectives and pictures of the existing and proposed buildings.

 

Officers highlighted the particular concerns raised around the design of the upper storeys of the proposed development. Officers stated that they were of the view that the proposals and proposed use of cast metal – a unique material for the City - was both contemporary and creative. Officers went on to highlight that the nearby 100 Liverpool Street building was of comparable height and that the proposed height of this development, at a location that was very much a gateway to the City was therefore justified.

 

Members were also informed that Historic England had expressed concern around the view of the proposed development from Liverpool Street, alongside the Great Eastern Hotel.

 

The Chair thanked Officers for the introduction. He invited the two Members of the Committee who had attended a site visit last week to open with any comments they might have on the application.

 

A Member who had attended the site visit last week stated that he was generally supportive of the application but that he would appreciate further information on the servicing of the proposed development and the effect that this was likely to have on other businesses also using Blomfield Street for this purpose. He added that he would also like to see whole life carbon impact and the degree of re-use noted within the report.

 

The second Member who had visited the site stated that he too was supportive of the application and in favour of the mansard design of the upper three storeys.

 

Another Member stated that the ‘opening up’ of this area for pedestrians had been a long time coming and he sought assurances that these proposals would not now impinge on pedestrian access here either during construction or once complete. He went on to highlight that the wording in the report seemed to suggest that the developer was not willing to contribute to the cost of cycle hire facilities. He questioned their position on this given that this appeared to be one of few sites in the City where such facilities could potentially be accommodated and the fact that cycling in the City was being increasingly promoted and encouraged.

 

A Member reported that the City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) had discussed the plans extensively and were generally supportive of them. However, given the servicing issues, he stated that he would like to have genuine certainty around consolidation. With regard to cycle hire immediately next to the Crossrail site, he argued that all bicycles would, inevitably, be gone in the morning and that this would then require additional cycles to be trucked in which would be problematic on this site. The Chair commented that he was grateful to the CAAC for their work and to the Member for regularly attending their meetings.

 

Officers reported that cycle hire contributions would be negotiated between TfL and the developer and that the City Corporation would be peripheral to these discussions.

 

A Member commented that this was an application for an office development in a business area and therefore seemingly straightforward. However, he underlined that it was the statutory duty of this Committee to take into account all relevant factors when determining the application. He conceded that the design of the proposed building, on the lower floors was a clear improvement on the existing structure. The same could not be said of the top three storeys, something highlighted by the City Heritage Society and the CAAC in their respective submissions but not adequately addressed within the report. The Member went on to state that he was personally of the view that the top three storeys of the proposed development were grotesquely out of keeping with the design on other buildings within the Bishopsgate Conservation Area. For this reason, he intended to vote against the application and would prefer the applicant to resubmit plans which were more in keeping with the architectural integrity of the City.

 

The Deputy Chairman spoke to disagree with this view. He stated that, whilst he understood the nature of the concerns, he personally found the design of the building and the proposed façade treatment particularly interesting and classy. This seemed to be a matter of design perspective and not a large enough issue, in his opinion, to reject the application. He added that the City was not unused to having unique buildings and that he was against the idea that City office buildings should all appear similar. He went on to state that this site was part of a complex jigsaw around Liverpool Street and the Crossrail site and that the application would contribute to meeting aims around the increase of office floorspace in the City.

 

Another Member spoke to highlight that this was a controversial application which seemed to, unfortunately, attract only marginal support in terms of design. He went on to refer specifically to ventilation and the statement with the report that ventilation systems for extracting and dispersing any emissions and cooking smells to the external air were to be at roof level. He questioned whether this would be true for the entire building, including the proposed retail units at ground floor level. Officers highlighted that this was for the entire building and that this was conditioned at Condition 28.

 

The Member went on to question how many occupants the finished building was likely to hold and whether a congestion assessment had been undertaken in what was clearly a very difficult and busy area. He finished by stating that he found reference to the constraints of Crossrail infrastructure for the justification of the scale of the building within the report curious. Officers drew Members attention to the ‘Trip Generation’ paragraphs within the report which indicated that the proposed development would generate a total of 547 two-way person trips during the AM peak hours.

 

Another Member spoke to reiterate that the site in question was very busy, crowded location – something which the design of the proposed development did not appear to take into account. She questioned, specifically, the use of long sheets of glass at ground floor level and whether this was appropriate in terms of security and anti-terrorism. She went on to agree that servicing at street level was a huge problem on this site and reiterated the need for a consolidation centre which she added that she would like to see conditioned to ensure that the completed development could not be occupied until these arrangements had been confirmed. She also added that servicing on-site should be possible if stipulated in the design brief.

 

Officers commented that the façade of the building and glass sheets would be hardened and conditioned.

 

The Member went on to comment on the mansard roof design stating that mansard roofs were, in her opinion, supposed to be sleek and blend in to the skyline. She stated that this was clearly not the case for the upper three storeys of the proposed development and this element therefore required further work.

 

A Member spoke in favour of the design of the building adding that it was important that the City be innovative and progressive in terms of design, continuing to mix the old and the new. Other Members echoed this same point with one citing 1 Poultry at Bank Junction as an example of an existing contemporary Mansard Roof that was both innovative and interesting.

 

Officers reported that the proposals for the upper three storeys of the building were a contemporary interpretation of a mansard roof. They also questioned the view that all mansard roofs were designed as subservient and highlighted that this would be a ‘bookend’ building on the proposed site.

 

Officers responded to concerns around servicing, highlighting that, due to nearby Crossrail infrastructure, this would need to be on-street. Officers agreed that Liverpool Street West should be fully pedestrianised and highlighted that servicing would be undertaken by small vans accessing the site from Broad Street Avenue. Officers starting point was that there should be a dedicated on-street loading bay for this purpose but that this would need to be the subject of a separate statutory process. Officers highlighted that bus stands currently located on Blomfield Street would need relocating due to the loading bay required for this site. They reported that they were currently working hard to find alternative locations for these.

 

With regard to consolidation, Officers agreed that this was essential and that the report suggested this be secured through the S106 with a cap on the number of deliveries secured through the DSP. In their opinion, this was the best route to secure this, by way of detailed discussions as opposed to conditions to either ‘pass’ or ‘fail’. The Comptroller and City Solicitor highlighted that consolidation centres were listed amongst the City’s Planning Obligations. She added that, in dealing with consolidation at S106 as opposed to conditioning, a range of other arrangements could be explored including monitoring, an opportunity for the City Corporation to request amendments and even financial contributions towards the monitoring of arrangements.

 

A Member spoke to state that she was disappointed to learn that the proposed development could not use the ground heat pumps from the Crossrail site. She also questioned the route that cyclists would need to take into the new building and whether this would involve them having to pass through the bin store. Finally, she questioned how servicing and waste would be taken in to and out of the building and whether a waste strategy would be in place.

 

Officers spoke to state that cycle access via the bin stores was not optimum design but reiterated that this was a very constrained site. Members were informed that there was just one potential area for any overlap between cyclists and waste but that it was hoped that the timing of this could be managed to ensure that such instances were minimal.

 

A Member noted that the ground floor plan of the building showed a lift entrance at Broad Street Avenue and questioned why this might not be used for servicing. Officers suggested that this would be used as much as possible to relieve pressure elsewhere but highlighted that larger trucks were unable to physically access Broad Street Avenue.

 

Another Member stated that, whilst it was obviously a matter of taste, he was not in favour of the mansard roof design. He also felt that there was insufficient information on the impact of this development at a difficult site which would welcome tens of thousands of people into the City on a daily basis.

 

Another Member agreed that she felt that this was a premature application in many respects. She suggested that the Committee should therefore push back on this. She added that she was concerned that the points made on energy were only grappled with briefly within the report and stated that she would be keen to see more in terms of feasibility and London Plan targets. She concluded by stating that she did not feel she had seen enough genuine benefits to the scheme to outweigh the concerns raised on it by Historic England and others.

 

Officers highlighted that carbon emissions were conditioned at Condition 79 which required a detailed assessment to be carried out ahead of any construction works.

 

A Member raised concerns in terms of Wind Microclimate and that the approach here seemed to be rather ‘hit and miss’. Officers agreed that this required further work and would be dealt with both under S106 and conditions.

 

The Chair asked that the Committee move to a vote on the application before them. Votes were cast as follows:

 

FOR – 19 Votes

AGAINST – 8 Votes

 

There were no abstentions.

 

REOLVED – That:

 

(a)  Planning permission be GRANTED for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to 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; and

(b)  Officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in the report under Section 106 and any necessary arrangements under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980.

Supporting documents: