Agenda and minutes

The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance, before welcoming Natasha Lloyd-Owen back to the Sub-Committee following a period of leave.

Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Shravan Joshi (Chairman), Deputy Michael Cassidy, Jaspreet Hodgson, Deputy Brian Mooney, Alderman Simon Pryke, Ian Seaton, and William Upton.

Deputy John Fletcher declared an interest in Item 5 by virtue of being a School Governor at The Aldgate School, which neighboured the site, and advised that he would not speak or vote on this item.

To agree the public minutes of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting held on 13 February 2024.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding Hill House, 1 Little New Street, London EC4A 3JR, specifically the demolition of existing building above ground with retention of existing basement and piles/ foundations and erection of a mixed use office building comprising two basement levels, lower ground, upper ground and upper ground mezzanine plus 18 upper storeys for the provision of office space (Use Class E), gym/auditorium (Use Class E), flexible office, café/retail (Use Class E), reprovision of existing library (Use Class F1), flexible library/office (Use Class F1/E) and restaurant (Use Class E), discontinuance of the City Walkway (Little New Street To Wine Office Court), enhanced and enlarged public realm, hard and soft landscaping, highway works, and associated enabling works.

The Town Clerk advised the officer’s presentation, as well as two addenda containing late representations and advising of corrections to errors within the planning officer’s report, amended conditions and planning obligations had been circulated to Members in advance. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director then 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 officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be granted, subject to all the relevant conditions being applied and Section 106 obligations being entered into.

There were no speakers registered to address the Sub-Committee in objection to the recommendations.

Oliver Hunt, on behalf of Landsec, then addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the recommendations. The Sub-Committee heard that Landsec had a successful track record of development in the City of London, which supported strategic ambitions such as Destination City and the Climate Action Strategy. Landsec sought to realise place potential, support the driving of footfall and future-proof City of London office stock. The Hill House

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director and Comptroller and City Solicitor.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director and the Comptroller and City Solicitor recommending reasons for refusal to reflect the views of the Sub-Committee in resolving, at the meeting of 13 February 2024, that it would refuse the application for planning permission under application ref: 23/00255/FULL for Portsoken Pavilion, 1 Aldgate Square London EC3N 1AF. The Sub-Committee was advised that only Members that were present at the Sub-Committee meeting on 13 February, at which the application was considered, could consider and agree the recommendation proposed (reasons for refusal). The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, introduced the item and invited comment from Members.

In response to questions from Members, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director, hioghlighted references within the reasons for refusal to the change of use for the proposed drinking establishment, which diverged from the original application, and the site’s proximity to The Aldgate School and other local impact. The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, then drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the recommendations, which were agreed.

RESOLVED – That the Planning Applications Sub-Committee agree that the Decision Letter includes the reasons for refusal as follows:

1.    By reason of its location within the public open space of Aldgate Square, adjacent to the east entrance of the Aldgate School and west side of St. Botolph’s Church Aldgate, the operation of the proposed drinking establishment (Sui generis) use, and the associated spilling out of customers, has a detrimental impact on the amenity and character of the public open space, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM3.5 (Night-time entertainment) and Draft Local Plan Policy CV4 (Evening and Night-Time Economy).

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing a list detailing development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since the last meeting.

In response to a question from a Member, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director confirmed that the applications in respect of Cromwell Tower would be consulted upon with residents in accordance with usual procedure, with notification by post and all objections properly accounted. Noting that the application was validated on 7 March 2024, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised that there may have been an administrative delay in progressing the consultation.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing a list detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director or those so authorised under their delegated powers since the last meeting.

At this point, the Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, sought approval from the Sub-Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

In response to questions from Members, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised that the application in respect of 81 Newgate Street was originally approved by the Planning & Transportation Committee in June 2020 and outlined amendments and approvals for the scheme, which had been permissible under delegated authority.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

A Member noted the application in respect of 65 Gresham Street, and, referencing an online article on the subject, sought confirmation as to why this had been determined under delegated authority rather than being brought to committee, given the suggestions that the scheme failed to accord with planning policy and the application was of public interest. Before a response was provided by the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director, the Interim Executive Director of Environment and a Member condemned abusive language used in the online article referenced.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised that the delegated officer’s report had not identified policy non-compliance issues with the scheme, and that the number of objections received was below the threshold at which applications are referred to Members. With regards to the level of public interest, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director added that this had been a matter of judgement which he had exercised having considered the application. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director further advised that he took full ownership for the decision to determine the application under delegated authority, and had not referred the matter to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman. In response to a question from another Member, the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director advised that the road closure included in the application was likely to be a managed and timed closure secured as part of the Section 278 agreement.

The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, responded that delegated authority was an important part of the planning process and was required to keep the system moving, adding that where proposals had little or no objections and had been appropriately scrutinised by officers, they should be agreeable under delegation without management by the Sub-Committee.

A Member, referencing earlier discussion in respect of representations, asked that

There was no other business.

The Deputy Chairman, in the Chair, then thanked all those in attendance for their contributions before closing the meeting.