Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Deputy Randall Anderson, Jaspreet Hodgson, Antony Manchester, Deborah Oliver, Judith Pleasance, Alderman Simon Pryke, Ian Seaton and Shailendra Umradia.

Deputy Edward Lord stated that he had been advised that the Leathersellers Company had an interest in Agenda Item 4 and as he was a member of the Leathersellers Company he would therefore withdraw from the meeting for Agenda Item 4.

Mr Mullally stated he had been in discussion with Legal Officers regarding the risk of an interest between himself, his wife, who was the Church of England prelate for London and Agenda Item 4 in respect of St Helen’s Square. Due to the legal separation of the parish and the diocese, he considered there was not a conflict of interest. Legal Officers and the Diocese of London supported this view and therefore he would take part in the consideration of Agenda Item 4.

To agree the public minutes of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting held on 11 June 2024.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning demolition of the existing buildings, retention and partial expansion of existing basement plus construction of a ground, plus 73 storey building (plus plant) for office use (Use Class E(g)); Retail/food and beverage (Use Class E(a)-(b)); Public amenity space (Flexible Class E(a)-(d) / Class F1 / Sui Generis); publicly accessible education space and viewing gallery at levels 72 and 73 (Sui Generis); public cycle hub (Sui Generis); plus podium garden at level 11, public realm improvement works, ancillary basement cycle parking, servicing, plant, highway works and other works associated with the proposed development.

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

Officers presented the application stating that the site was bounded to the south by Leadenhall Street, to the east by St Mary Axe and to the north and west by Undershaft. There were heritage assets nearby notably the Grade I listed Lloyd’s building to the south, the Grade I listed St Andrew’s Undershaft to the east and the Grade I St Helen’s Church to the north. The St Helen’s Place Conservation Area was also to the north. The site was within the City Cluster, the strategic outlet for the City’s growth to maintain its economic objectives and its international competitiveness. Members were shown the proposed scheme amidst the existing and consented cluster of towers in the location.  The location was within the City Cluster policy area in both the adopted 2015 local plan and the proposed City Plan 2040. It was broadly at the heart of the cluster.

Members were shown an aerial view of the site showing the existing building which was the 1960s

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Chairman asked if Members had any questions of Officers.

A Member stated that the Barbican Estate already had fibre optic internet so there was no need for the antennas to serve the residents. He stated that 5G small cell infrastructure was proceeding at pace in the Square Mile as well as file transfer protocol servers (FTP), so it was hard to see a need for this technology outside the Barbican either. Given the large buildings in the City and with the line of sight requirement this would not benefit buildings in the Square Mile. The Member added that there were problematic heritage considerations with the proposal to locate the equipment on a listed building. He invited Officers to confirm whether any of these assertions were incorrect. The stated that he understood why this application had to come to the Sub-Committee but he would be supporting the Officer's recommendation to reject the application.

Seeing no further questions the Chairman moved to the vote.

The Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them.

           Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 12 votes

                                                       OPPOSED –  0 votes

                                                       There were no abstentions.

The recommendations were therefore carried unanimously.

[Deputy Michael Cassidy, Ian Bishop-Laggett, Anthony Fitzpatrick, Alderman Hughes-Penney, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Brian Mooney, Deputy Alastair Moss, and Deputy Henry Pollard were not in attendance for this item and therefore did not vote.]

RESOLVED - That the Development Director be authorised to issue a decision notice refusing to grant planning permission for the above proposal for the following reasons:

1. No evidence of consultation with nearby schools has been submitted and the applicant has failed to certify that the proposed equipment together with the existing equipment when operational, would not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection, contrary to paragraph

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them.

Votes were cast as follows:          IN FAVOUR – 12 votes

                                                      OPPOSED –  0 votes

                                                      There were no abstentions.

The recommendations were therefore carried unanimously.

[Deputy Michael Cassidy, Ian Bishop-Laggett, Anthony Fitzpatrick, Alderman Hughes-Penney, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Brian Mooney, Deputy Alastair Moss, and Deputy Henry Pollard were not in attendance for this item and therefore did not vote.]

RESOLVED - That the Development Director be authorised to issue a decision notice refusing to Listed Building Consent for the above proposal for the following reasons:

1. The proposals would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest and setting of Cromwell Tower as part of the Barbican Estate (Grade II) and the Barbican and Golden Lane Conservation Area, causing less than substantial harm to their heritage significance as a result of direct and indirect impacts on the heritage assets. The harm would not be outweighed by public benefits. The proposal is not in accordance with London Plan Policy HC1; Local Plan Policies CS 12, DM 12.1, DM 12.3; HE1; Draft City Plan Policies S11 and HE1 and the NPPF.

2. The proposals would fail to protect and enhance views of the Barbican Towers as identified city landmarks and is not in accordance with Local Plan policy CS13 (2), emerging City Plan 2040 S13 and guidance in the Protected Views SPD.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer & Development Director.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer & 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.

There were no questions.

Alderwoman Susan Pearson

The Chairman stated that this would be the last meeting of Alderwoman Susan Pearson. He thanked her for her valuable input over her years on the Planning and Transportation Committee and Planning Applications Sub-Committee both as a Common Councillor and more recently as an Alderwoman.