Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Ian Bishop-Laggett, Deputy John Fletcher, Alderman Robert Hughes-Penney, Deputy Brian Mooney, Deborah Oliver, Alderman Simon Pryke and William Upton.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 April 2024, 30 April 2024 and 9 May 2024.

The Town Clerk informed Members that a Member had requested a number of amendments to the draft minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2017. The requested amendments were outlined. Members were informed that one of the amendments was to amend the wording in the second paragraph on page 21, from “within 15 minutes” to “within 50 metres”. However, this did not reflect what was stated in the meeting so it was not proposed to make this amendment. Members agreed that the proposed changes be made, with the exception of the amendment to the second paragraph of page 21.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2024, 30 April 2024, 9 May 2024 be agreed as a correct record subject to the following amendments to 17 April 2024 minutes:

Page 15, last paragraph, 4 lines from the bottom, that after the words, ‘independent heritage report’ the words, ‘by Alec Forshaw’ be added.

Page 16 - first paragraph, the last sentence be amended to, ‘They concluded that there would be a significant impact and major adverse impact to a number of rooms with a living element’.

Page 16 - last paragraph, last sentence be amended to ‘Ms Dehon stated that Mr Sturgis had demonstrated clearly that Option 2 - Major Refurbishment performed far better than any other option in relative (per square metre) and overall terms and the next sentence start with ‘It’ rather than ‘she stated’.

Page 19 - last paragraph, second sentence be amended to state that Deputy King asked why these were never seriously considered and stated ‘that retrofitting could have saved significant disruption, carbon and money’.

Page 36, first paragraph be amended to read ‘In response to a Member’s question about the number of neighbour objections received, an Officer stated

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning the demolition of existing buildings to basement level and construction of a nine storey plus basement level building for hotel use (Class C1) with retail (Class E(a) / E(b)) use at part ground and basement levels together with ancillary cycle parking, associated servicing, plant, amenity terraces, landscaping and other associated works.

The Town Clerk referred to those papers set out within the main agenda pack as well as the Officer presentation slides and an addendum that had been separately circulated and published.

Officers presented the application, highlighting the location of the site to the north of Long Lane, west of Aldersgate Street and the Barbican Estate, east of Smithfield Market and south of London Underground rail lines. An Officer stated that although it was not located within a conservation area, the Barbican Conservation Area was to the east, the Charterhouse Conservation Area to the north, and the Smithfield Conservation Area to the southwest.

Members were informed that the site comprised two office buildings, 1-5 and 6-8 Long Lane. They were 6 and 5 storeys in height respectively, and they dated from the 1960s and 1970s. Members were shown photographs of the buildings from Long Lane and Aldersgate Street, and a view from Long Lane looking towards the east.

They were also shown the front elevations of the two buildings and the open space on the eastern part of the site which had a hard surface and lacked seating and greening.

Members were shown a photograph taken from the Barbican podium, which showed the small cluster of commercial buildings to the north of Long Lane. Members were also shown a photograph of the view from the north elevation of the buildings alongside adjacent buildings with the Barbican towers to

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning the change of use of existing deep level tunnels (Sui Generis) to visitor and cultural attraction (Use Class F1(b)(c)), including bar (Sui Generis); demolition and reconstruction of existing building at 38-39 Furnival Street; redevelopment of 40-41 Furnival Street, for the principal visitor attraction pedestrian entrance at ground floor, with ancillary retail at first and second floor levels and ancillary offices at third and fourth levels, excavation of additional basement levels at 40-41 Furnival Street and 38-39 Furnival Street, and widening of lift shaft at 38-39 Furnival Street; creation of new pedestrian entrance at 31-33 High Holborn, to provide secondary visitor attraction entrance (including principal bar entrance), deepening of lift shaft at 31-33 High Holborn; provision of ancillary cycle parking, substation, servicing and plant, and other associated works. (Duplicate application submitted to the London Borough of Camden as the site area extends across the borough boundary).

The Town Clerk referred to those papers set out within the main agenda pack as well as the Officer presentation slides and an addendum that had been separately circulated and published.

Officers presented the application, stating that this was an application for the change of use of the existing tunnels, formerly known as the Kingsway tunnels, to a visitor and cultural attraction. Kingsway tunnels were located approximately 32 metres below ground, underneath the Central line. They ran beneath High Holborn and extended beyond the City of London’s northwest boundary over to the London Borough of Camden. The tunnel network offered approximately 8,000 square metres of subterranean floor space and included two tunnels of 5.1m diameter known as the North and South Streets which ran beneath High Holborn, and four large tunnels of 7.2 metre diameter to the south, known as the avenues.

Members

Report of the Chief Planning Officer & Development Director.

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

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

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

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

A Member stated that with two applications on the agenda, the meeting had taken over 3.5 hours and a number of Members had had to leave. She raised concern about there being two large applications scheduled for the next meeting and suggested that there be no more than one application considered at each meeting. The Chairman stated as far as possible, the applications were scheduled with just one to be considered at each meeting but the pipeline of planning applications had to be managed too. He added that the City of London prided itself on prompt decision making to give confidence to the development industry and the investment community. The Director of Planning and Development stated that he considered that two items was achievable in one meeting if everyone worked towards this. He was concerned about the implications on the development pipeline and confidence in the City if the consideration of schemes was delayed. The Chairman stated that he would look at the development pipeline with the Director of Planning and Development and the Deputy Chairman and where there were opportunities to have just one application, where two had been planned, they would try to do so. In response to a Member’s suggestion that two meetings could be held in one week, the Chairman stated there were resource implications for Officers.

A Member asked for a report to the Planning & Transportation Committee on the impact of the carbon optioneering guidance. The Director of Planning & Development stated that there had been more retrofits than redevelopments for several years running. He stated the impact of the guidance could be reviewed and he would take this away and discuss with colleagues. He raised concerns about Officer time with the City Plan and the Sustainability SPD being priorities. The Chairman stated that the time

The Chairman welcomed Eamonn Mullally, a new Member on the Planning & Transportation Committee and Planning Applications Sub-Committee.