Agenda item

Registered Plan No. 12/00370/FULL

Development Proposal – Part-replacement of the existing facades; creation of additional floor space through development of existing roof top plant housings and extension of fifth floor for office use (Class B1) (2058sqm); change of use from office (Class B1) to either Class A1 or A3 at part ground, first and second floor levels (2389sqm).

The City Planning Officer detailed site and related information to Members.  He also advised of the following corrections to the report: -

Page 53, Condition 22 – Condition 22 would be removed to avoid duplication with condition 23.

Page 54, Condition 27 – Insert “windows” to read “No doors, windows or gates shall open over the public highway”.

Page 57, Paragraphs 8 – 10 – “Noise effecting residential properties…” and paragraphs (m) and (n) to be removed as they were not relevant in this case.

Page 63, Paragraph 1 – The objection was submitted in this way and we have been unsuccessful in contacting the objector as they did not provide e-mail address or phone number.  The reason for comment is “noise, residential amenity, traffic or highways”, which was addressed in the body of the objection text.  Where the objection ended it would appear that the objector would have written that they believe that “The proposed riverside façade does not relate to the surrounding buildings”.  This point had been addressed in the body of the Planning Officer’s report.

Simon Bates spoke against the application.

John McRae spoke in support of the application.

Discussion ensued and the following points were made by Members –

·        Concern was expressed regarding the strong statement view the proposed development would portray and the importance of ensuring it did not appear part of St Paul’s Cathedral.

·        Some Members welcomed the proposed development, stating that the existing building was dated; however, the tone of the proposed façade was too light and required further consideration to ensure it was sympathetic to its surroundings.  It was therefore suggested that this be dealt with by condition.

·        One Member commented on the vast improvement the proposals would create visually, during both the daytime and the evening.

The City Planning Officer advised that the open and transparent elevation would always be seen at an angle; therefore the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral would not be visually associated with the proposal.  Furthermore, the tone of the anodised metal used on the façade could be adjusted subject to discussion with the applicant and as Members suggested, could be dealt with by condition.

Upon being put to the vote, it was –

In favour – 12

Against - 4

RESOLVED – That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to Members request that the City Planning Officer discuss with the applicant alternative options as regards the variety of tones available for the façade.