Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding an application for the Poultry Market and General Market and The Annexe Buildings West Smithfield London EC1A 9PS. With regard to the General Market  - proposals involved the partial demolition, repair, refurbishment and extension of the existing building known as the General Market at 43 Farringdon Street on the basement, ground, first and roof levels; creation of a new entrance structure on West Poultry Avenue (and associated refurbishment of the existing canopy over West Poultry Avenue) with new facades to West Smithfield and Charterhouse Street; new entrances on the corner of Farringdon Street and Charterhouse Street; Change of use to provide a museum and ancillary uses and areas, together with a flexible retail, restaurant, drinking establishment and leisure (gym) use for the perimeter 'houses'.

Proposals for the Poultry Market included partial demolition, repair, refurbishment and alteration of the existing building known as the Poultry Market, Charterhouse Street at basement, ground and first levels; change of use to a museum and ancillary uses and areas.

Proposals for the Annexe Site (Red House, Iron Mountain,  Fish Market and Engine House) include the partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the existing buildings known as the Annexe Site at 25 Snow Hill and 29 Smithfield Street at basement, ground, first, second  and third levels; creation of a triple height canopy above a public realm space; change of use to a flexible museum, offices, retail, restaurant, drinking establishment, events and functions use. Refurbishment of and minor alterations to the existing building known as the Engine House at West Smithfield at basement and ground levels; Change of use to a flexible retail and museum use.

(The proposal would provide 33,340sq.m of Museum floorspace (Class D1), 4254sq.m of flexible A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 & D2 floorspace, 2459sq.m of flexible B1/D1 floorspace, 812sq.m of flexible A3/A4/D1 & D2 floorspace, 23sq.m of flexible A1/D1 floorspace and 86sq.m of flexible A1/A3/A4/D1 floorspace.)

The report also covers considerations under application reference 19/01344/LBC, which is an application for listed building consent in relation to the following works to the Poultry Market :

Part demolition, repair, and refurbishment of the building known at the Poultry Market, Charterhouse Street at ground, first and basement levels, associated with a change of use of the building to provide a museum and ancillary uses and areas; including: works associated with an entrance structure on West Poultry Avenue; internal alterations including creation of a part new first floor; fabric removal and refurbishment on all floors; replacement glazing; facade cleaning and other facade repair; levelling of ground floor; works of repair to the roof; installation of new heating and cooling equipment; new M&E services; repurposing of the south service bay and associated infill structure; remodelling of the north service bay; internal decoration; replacement balustrade; and other associated works as shown on the submitted plans and drawings.

 

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director presented the application to Members, beginning by reporting that there was an update that, whilst not strictly a planning matter, did provide clarity on parliamentary issues. He highlighted that reference was made at paragraph 74 of the report to the fact that Smithfield Market is regulated by a series of Acts of Parliament, amongst them the Metropolitan Meat and Poultry Act, 1860 and the London Central Markets Act, 1875. Section 21 of the 1875 Act provides that the markets established under the 1860 act and the 1875 act shall be designated collectively as London Central Markets. Section 25 of the 1875 Act empowers the City Corporation to “... appropriate and use for any purpose, any lands acquired by them for purposes of the London Central Markets, or any of them, but not required to be retained by them for those purposes ………………” It is currently intended that the Bill will lift all the restrictions as to use as a market from the Smithfield site. However, if a surplus resolution is passed by the City in respect of the Poultry Market, then that has the effect of removing the restrictions from that part of the site and in those circumstances the development under consideration today will not be reliant on the passage of the Bill.

 

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director went on to state that, as paragraph 76 of the report noted, the planning system operates as a separate and self-contained statutory code. The grant of planning permission would not override the provisions of the relevant Act of Parliament. Members were informed that the planning application should be determined on its own planning merits and that it will be for any future user of the site to ensure that any relevant parcels of land are able lawfully to be used for the purposes proposed, whether through appropriation or amendment to the Acts of Parliament or otherwise.

 

Officers went on to refer to the additional information on the application provided to Members in the form of a virtual site visit and fly-through animation of the site as well as an addendum report and PowerPoint presentation. They stated that they would provide a further overview of the scheme today as an aide memoire.

 

Members were informed that the site in question was at the western end of Smithfield and included three separate buildings – the General Market, Poultry Market and the Annexe buildings. The proposed new Museum would occupy the General and Poultry Market with a mixed-use scheme on the Annexe buildings to the south. Officers reported that the General Market is a Horace Jones building 1883 and is not listed. The building had been subject to numerous alterations in the 1950s due to bomb damage. The Poultry Market is a Grade II listed building built in 1963 by T.P. Bennett and Ove Arup. The Annexe site is made up of four separate elements – the Fish Market (an 1880 Horace Jones building), the Iron Mountain site (a 1961 warehouse), the Red House (an 1899 purpose built Victorian coal store) and the Engine House (built in 1898).

 

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the approach to the scheme was a conservation and restoration based approach with some modern elements alongside this. The concept involved a very permeable and accessible public building both day and night with multiple entrances.  West Poultry Avenue would be stopped up and was proposed as the principal entrance to the new Museum. Other access points would be located on West Smithfield and Hart’s Corner. Officers went on to highlight the vehicular and other servicing points across the site as well as access to the educational facilities and where servicing points for the Poultry Market would remain.

 

Members were informed that the Museum concept was ‘A Journey Through Time’, utilising the depth of the building from the very imposing basements to the upper storeys to create flexible/adaptable spaces to depict from past time all the way through to future, imagined time.

 

The presentation proceeded to focus specifically on the General Market building, comprised of three elements, the imposing and spacious civic space at ground floor-level which celebrates the views to the roof and the dome as well as the Phoenix Columns. This was intended as a flexible programming/events space. The outer crust of the building (a term referring to the shops and houses around the periphery of the Market) was intended to be a rich mix of entrances to the new Museum, museum displays, educational facilities, retail units, bars and restaurants with vibrant frontages onto Smithfield and also in to the central space. The uses were designed to have a collaborative synergy with the Museum.

 

Members were shown images of the existing view of the General Market building, currently under restoration, to provide a clear idea of the spacious and imposing nature of its interior. The outer crust would rise up to first and second floor level with, again, ancillary retail and educational uses leading onto the Museum and facing out to the surround streets. The outer crust proposals would involve a light touch approach of conservation and new openings to provide flexible spaces for educational uses and the like. In terms of the central space here, proposed to be a very flexible and adaptable space for exhibitions displays and gatherings. Members were also shown images of the rear elevation of houses on the periphery where, again, a light touch conservation approach was proposed with selected new openings. The houses, when originally built, were quite an eclectic series of facades and proposals were to continue to reflect this eclectic mix with a diversity of approaches to shop fronts, retaining and restoring any original or existing shop fronts of merit on the site but also proposing new shop fronts within certain tenant design guidelines and creating new windows which would offer views into the Museum and its activity as well as display windows which would contain artefacts, artwork and other creative items.

 

At the entrance, Members were shown images of a very imposing staircase with a lift core down to the basement of the market (a particularly exceptional example of Victorian brick and steel engineering with brick vaults which reach down to Roman level making it, potentially, one of the most captivating spaces in London). Access through this point and on the landing of the stairs would be intended to celebrate the engineering scale and imposing proportions of the space. At the end of this area, there were proposals for a café area where visitors would be able to see, hear and feel trains on a live railway track passing by through a windowed area which would be a unique experience at almost Roman levels.

 

Members were shown computer generated images of the look and feel of the space and the interior.

 

At roof level, the approach proposed was generally to restore the existing pitch roofs, however, some (which were generally concealed from any vantage point including Holborn Viaduct) would be removed and replaced with a green roof. This was considered acceptable due to the minimum impact it would have on public views.

 

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the current General Market building itself was currently somewhat understated and restrained. The dynamic approach to creative displays proposed as well as the reinstatement of the original blinds would help to rectify this.

 

With regard to Poultry Avenue, Members were shown existing views of the site with an oppressive brick beam across what was proposed as the main entrance to the new Museum. This would be stopped up but the Museum would commit to 7am-midnight opening to the public which would be managed through an access management plan with reviewing scope to offer enhanced access outside of these hours. On top of the entrance would be a mesh LED screen depicting images of the displays, collections and exhibitions currently on show in the Museum. The space inside was proposed to be a curative, flexible space to allow the public to pass through most hours of the day.

 

From West Poultry Avenue, heading east, access could be gained to the Poultry Market, a building characterised by pop-art architecture as well as a very imposing shell concrete dome roof. Proposals for the Poultry Market involved a mixture of display and events with a large temporary gallery, basement collection stores, workshops and also a research centre. The Committee were shown existing plans of the building and Members attention was drawn to Buyer’s Walk, the east to west spine of the existing building. When proposed floorplans were displayed, Members were shown how Buyers Walk was picked out in a subtle way but with a new temporary gallery inserted. Officers explained that temporary galleries were increasingly important in terms of generating income and attracting new audiences.

 

Visitors would enter the building from West Poultry Avenue and walk into a very spacious area. Officers highlighted that one of the major debates around this application had been the arrival experience of the shell roof. Instead of celebrating the east-west axis of the roof, proposals would remove existing traders stalls and celebrate the north-south axis to give a very good appreciation of the ingenious structural aspects of the roof and these were therefore considered acceptable in historic building terms. The space would be 5.6m high and would enable the curation of world-class new exhibitions. With regard to the educational facility for schools, Officers highlighted that the strategic goal of the Museum was to engage with every school child in London and this facility would enable them to do so by accommodating an average of 30 school visits per day. To the east on East Poultry Avenue, would be the entrance to the lecture theatre.

 

At first floor level, Members were shown an existing view featuring market stalls and a rather unexceptional roofscape. Proposals involved the removal and replacement of these with a new, slightly higher level, insert to provide another flexible space for exhibitions. It would also create a powerful vantage point to appreciate the fine curved roof and allow views, on the north side of the building, into the centre for research, restoration and conservation and critical back of house elements currently not visible to the public. 

 

An element of the scheme that was contentious in historic building terms was the removal of the clerestory glazing and its like for like replacement. Many retention options had been explored, however, the replacement was considered to be acceptable (including the replacement of the ‘fritting’), firstly because it would match the original joinery and details of the windows and secondly because it would allow the Museum to take a passive energy approach. This would, however, be conditioned.

 

Members were shown the entrance from ground floor level down to the basement, where the proposal was for the museum to allow visitors to go down and immerse themselves in their rich collection stores, much of which was not currently accessible to the public.

 

Finally, with regards to the Annexe sites to the south-west, Officers reported that this part of the development was not within the curtilage of the Museum but would serve as rich ecosystem of office use (aimed at SMEs and those working in the creative industry), retail, restaurants and gyms amongst others to complement the Museum setting. Members were informed that the existing Fish Market was currently being stabilised and that proposals here involved a conservation approach to celebrate and reinvent the existing architect. As with the General Market building, the brick vaults within the Annexe buildings were hugely impressive and it was proposed to open these up to the public with active uses. The Red House would provide office floor space. A roof terrace would also be provided here as would a new ‘Iron Mountain’ canopy between the Fish Market and the Red House. The canopy was intended to celebrate the rich legacy of steelwork and architecture of the market buildings and was considered to be a very convincing, contemporary reinterpretation of this.

 

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the Red House, originally designed as a coal store, would see a new two storey extension as well as alterations to the windows. The proposal involved a very sensitive/sympathetic creation of new window openings to provide light to the new office accommodation within. The new roof extension was a contemporary design, set back to be deferential to the main building. It would, however, be designed in a manner which picks up on the architecture of the existing building.

 

Finally, Members were shown images of the proposed new Iron Mountain canopy, an imposing steel structure which would sit over a new wedge-shaped area of adaptable, flexible public realm which could be utilised throughout the year and also throughout the night.

 

With regard to the Engine House, Members were informed that proposals were to celebrate and re-enliven the existing building with the addition of a new green roof and to utilise the building as a new A use building.

 

Officers concluded by discussing the key planning issues and the recommendations before Members, indicating that the report was very clear and acknowledged that the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policies that seek to support the continued presence of Smithfield Market as market uses will be displaced from the Poultry Market. Although there would be a diminishment in the capacity of Smithfield Market through the loss of the Poultry Market, the majority of traders in units operate from within the east and west market which would continue as part of the proposal. Critically, the scheme had been designed to co-exist alongside an operational meat market, the operational times of the two uses compliment each other with only a small element of overlap that would be carefully managed.

 

Members were informed that very careful consideration had been given to potential Section 278 works and the delivery of servicing arrangements and the impact that the proposal would have on the market during construction of the Museum. These were considered proportional and reasonable by the Market Superintendent, who oversaw the operation of the market, to allow the market to continue to function unhindered. The Transport addendum which forms part of the scheme demonstrates that there is a solution, however, this would continue to be refined in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

 

Officers reported that the proposed Museum use was supported on the basis of the City’s wider cultural aspirations and the vision of the Smithfield area as part of the Culture Mile and the very substantial wider public benefits the scheme offers in an area characterised by diverse uses including cultural attractions. It was also highlighted that the scheme was a strategic development which would generate significant employment, spending and tourism which would benefit the economy. It would secure a long-term occupier for these buildings, breathing life into and enlivening these and the surrounding public realm. It would transform the market buildings into a world class museum, retail and office use area – uses that would inevitably require physical change to the historic fabric. These alterations to original features through the remodelling of the Poultry Market interior will, to a degree, diminish the original layout and fabric however, any harm is considered to be clearly outweighed by the wider public benefit. It is considered that the proposed changes are justified, sensitive and skilful in the way that they successfully weave together Victorian, 20^th century and contemporary architecture. The site would enable the museum to enhance its visitor offering and to showcase more of its collection and back of house research/conservation work to the public for the first time. The social benefits of the scheme are considered substantial, allowing all sections of the community, irrespective of economic and social position, to access and appreciate the interiors of such historically significant buildings and the Museums collection. The scheme also provides the opportunity for the museum to expand its work with communities around wellbeing and social inclusion and will provide enhanced learning space allowing more engagement with schools.

 

Officers stated that they considered the scheme to be exemplary in its environmental and sustainability credentials. The circle economy principles adopted with the re-use and salvaging of existing fabric is also considered exemplary as well as the connection to Citigen. The scheme is considered as an exceptional and world-class example of the sensitive restoration and reuse of historic buildings whilst maximising economic and socially inclusive public access.

 

In conclusion, overall, the scheme was considered as an exceptional opportunity to sensitively revive an underutilised area of Smithfield into a new destination of London, if not UK-wide, importance that would be accessible to all groups in the community and have significant social, educational, cultural, economic, historic buildings and environmental benefits and was therefore recommended favourably to the Committee.

 

In advance of the Chair calling speakers to address the Committee, a Member raised a point of order stating that he and other members of the Committee had been sent an email from the Chairman of the Smithfield Market Tenants Association (SMTA) this morning containing some representations that he wished to draw to their attention. He stated that he was aware that this correspondence had been sent to the Case Officer on Friday afternoon and was therefore surprised that it had not been shared with Members in advance of this meeting, particularly when a further addendum containing representations sent after those from the Chair of the SMTA and his association was circulated yesterday. He questioned what Members and the applicant ought to now do with these representations and why they were not included in the addendum. The Chair responded that he was aware of this and intended, at this stage, to ensure that all Members had now received this information and had had adequate time to read through it. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that, in essence, this was external correspondence between two third parties and not directed to the City Corporation. He added that if Officers were to include all similar types of correspondence between parties involved in an application, background papers would be immense. Officers had, however, considered the correspondence and the issues raised in it and noted that it reiterated issues that had already been made as part of the objectors statement and were therefore addressed in the report. The Chair asked that the Town Clerk now circulate the correspondence sent by the SMTA this morning to allow Members time to read this whilst the Committee were addressed by speakers.

 

The Chair introduced Mr Gregory Lawrence, a registered objector, in his capacity as Chairman of the SMTA and invited him to address the Committee. Mr Lawrence clarified that he was speaking on behalf of the SMTA and as a market trader within the central markets. He reported that the markets had been very successfully operating from this site for hundreds of years and intended to do so for the foreseeable future as they had long, strong leases that were capable of being renewed. He also highlighted that Smithfield Market was here by Royal Charter. Whilst the SMTA did not oppose the principles of regenerating the redundant Smithfield General Market, they consider there to be substantial and significant gaps in the submitted planning application and a lack of certainty and cohesiveness around the long-term plans for the market complex, meaning that they felt that the application was premature. Mr Lawrence reported that the SMTA had submitted a detailed representation to this effect in February 2020 and that their concerns had yet to be fully addressed. The SMTA were also concerned about the potential conflict of interest for various Members of this Committee who also sit on the Markets Committee, the Capital Buildings Committee and the Board of Governors of the Museum of London, all of whom would seem to have a vested interest in seeing the Museum of London’s proposals approved. They were also concerned about a lack of consultation from the applicant, specifically the SMTA had not been consulted on the developing details of servicing, traffic and public realm. Whilst the applicant had consulted the Market Superintendent, he is employed by and represent the City Corporation and not the SMTA. The SMTAs input would have helped to inform the proposed development, chiefly, proposals regarding traffic, pedestrian movement and the public realm. Mr Lawrence went on to assert that there were a series of inaccuracies within the planning application, highlighting that, importantly, the Poultry Market is not, as indicated, surplus to requirements. He added that the Poultry Market was an active part of the central markets, accounting for up to 35% of the trade of the whole of Smithfield and that employment figures referenced within the planning submission were also wholly inaccurate and misleading in the context of this application.

 

Mr Lawrence commented that, whilst the applicant had explored the economic benefits associated with the relocation of the Museum of London, they have not considered the disruption and disturbance caused to market traders and the economic implications of this. Insufficient information had been provided to establish how the Museum and Central Markets could operate alongside each other without operational conflicts, particularly in terms of servicing and deliveries. The application contains too much flexibility in terms of the range and quantum of uses proposed making it difficult for Officers and Members to truly understand and make an informed judgement. This flexibility also made it challenging to establish appropriate planning obligations, affordable housing contributions and CIL contributions. He commented that the planning application lacked any detail for the public realm which would be severely compromised by the applicants expected 2 million new visitors per annum. This concern had also been raised by the GLA who had requested further information in relation to a number of technical queries including costs, phasing and deliverability of public realm measures.

 

Mr Lawrence concluded by stating that the SMTA believed that the application was premature in so far that it assumes the short and long-term relocation of the markets when no such plans had been agreed with them and the principle of long-term relocation is founded on emerging rather than adopted planning policies. Mr Lawrence commented that the SMTA had raised other technical matters which he did not have time to cover today but added that he trusted that Members had read their submissions and would seek clarity from Officers on all such matters. He stated that a comprehensive approach was required for this sensitive and important London site and not the piecemeal approach that created uncertainty around the longer term future of Smithfield Market and the businesses that trade there or those suppliers and customers who are dependent on the markets. In summary, he highlighted that the SMTA felt that there were substantial and significant gaps in the submitted planning application which made it impossible for the City Corporation to establish the true impacts of the proposed development which should be refused or deferred until the issues outlined had been addressed.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Lawrence for his contribution and invited questions from Members.

 

A Member questioned Mr Lawrence on a lack of consultation with traders which it was suggested had been carried out through the Market Superintendent only. She also referred to the suggestion that the market would need to relocate ancillary facilities and questioned how important these were to the running of the market as well as whether Mr Lawrence had any view as to where they might be relocated to.

 

Mr Lawrence reported that the SMTA were in talks with the Director of the Museum of London in 2015-2017 but that these were concerning the Museum of London relocating to the Annexe buildings – the Red House, the General Market and the basement of the Poultry Market. At no time was utilising the whole of the Poultry Market discussed up until the beginning of 2018. Mr Lawrence went on to reference several meetings between the Museum of London and the SMTA that had taken place from 2018 onwards, highlighting that, on 23 November 2018, the SMTA were presented with detailed designs for the upper floor of the Poultry Market but had refused to consider these as tenants had no plans to vacate the building which was made clear at the meeting as was the fact that if these plans were publicly consulted on the SMTA would have to oppose them. At subsequent meetings, the Director of the Museum of London had been asked to look at a phased move but it was highlighted that this would be more costly for the Museum. The SMTA advised the Director, at this stage, to hold back on the consultation at the end of February 2019 until tenants had more information which she agreed to. Mr Lawrence went on to report that on 26 June 2019, the public consultation display images were delivered to the SMTA containing images of the whole market. A meeting between the SMTA and the Director which took place on 28 June 2019 was for the purpose of providing updates only and no subsequent meetings took place by way of consultation.

 

With regard to the ancillary facilities, Mr Lawrence stressed that these were absolutely vital to the running of Smithfield Market and that the SMTA had no idea as to where they could be satisfactorily relocated. He added that there were currently ten successful and vital businesses operating out of the Poultry Market and that the SMTA also had concerns as to where these would be relocated despite suggestions that they could be housed in the East and West Market. Mr Lawrence went on to question how Smithfield Market would be expected to run at 60% of what it currently does without the Poultry Market. He also questioned how this project would ever work should the Barking project not proceed.

 

Another Member wished to explore the issue of co-existence further with Mr Lawrence. He referred to paragraph 111 of the report which stated “the City as landlord and manager of the markets has been investigating the relocation of these facilities as part of the market’s consolidation programme. Re-location of the facilities into City owned 79-83 Charterhouse Street, the Rotunda Basement Carpark and areas within the East and West Markets would be possible”. And questioned whether any of this had been discussed with the SMTA. He went on to question how many basements there were in the Poultry Market that tenants were currently using, how the SMTA had arrived at a figure of 35% for the Poultry Market and whether it was possible to phase the move so that the General Market could be the primary focus for the Museum with the Poultry Market being phased in thereafter. He went on to refer to the SMTA’s views that the application today was premature and questioned whether this was because there may be a better scheme to come forward. Mr Lawrence reported that the Museum had touched upon relocating certain facilities within Grand Avenue which the SMTA did not think was feasible. With regard to the figure of 35%, Mr Lawrence stated that this was arrived at through analysing tonnage and turnover and added that it would have been preferable for the Committee to visit Smithfield Market in the early hours of the morning to see exactly how it operates and how busy the Poultry Market is. 

 

With regard to basements, Mr Lawrence reported that some but not all businesses located here had a basement. He added that there was also vacant space that needed to be let in the Poultry Market at present.

 

The Deputy Chairman asked Mr Lawrence what he regarded as the most significant planning objections/considerations that Members could legitimately consider in making their decision today. Mr Lawrence stated that servicing was vital in this respect as was the conflict in terms of co-existence given the SMTA’s views that there was too much flexibility in the application in terms of the range and quantum of uses proposed and the difficulties this created in terms of establishing appropriate planning obligations.

 

A Member asked for clarity as to whether the ongoing discussions around SMTA members leases and the potential future location of the Market, whilst important, were planning matters. The Comptroller and City Solicitor advised that it was not uncommon, when considering a redevelopment scheme, for planning permission to come forward very early in the process, ahead of any compulsory purchase order. This meant that there were often leaseholders or owners still in occupation. Members were informed that these were essentially commercial arrangements that would need to be resolved before a development could be commenced. They were not, however, material to planning. That being said, the desirability of retaining a market and market operations on site was material.

 

The Chair invited Sharon Ament, Director of the Museum of London, speaking in favour of the application, to address the Committee. On consultation, the Director stated that she was genuinely saddened to hear from Mr Lawrence on the SMTAs concerns. However, she added that she was really confident about the Museum’s extensive approach to consultation and looked forward to productive dialogue with the SMTA in the future. The Museum would relish the opportunity to operate alongside and in harmony with a thriving wholesale meat market. The Director went on to report that, since 2015, when the Museum had first announced its intent to move, they had been in active consultation and had engaged with over 13,000 people. During the 2019 public consultation, it became evident that there was a very strong public backing for this scheme with 96% of respondents voicing their support. Since submission of the scheme over 70 letters of support had also been received. Of particular note in this regard, were the positive, strong letters of support from heritage organisations – Historic England, SAVE and the Victorian Society amongst them. However, in spite of all of this support, the Museum did also recognise the objection that had just been made on behalf of the SMTA and it that regard the Museum team had worked extremely hard to ensure that the new Museum could work successfully alongside the functioning meat market through both the construction phase and operation.

 

The Director went on to refer to social need, highlighting that the Museum was a civic space, a place of learning, exploration and social interaction. The Museum would be able to do all of this with much greater effect via this project and, in particular, to better fulfil its ambitions of enabling schools/young people and future generations to engage in the history of London and to better understand and participate in their City. The designs for the West Smithfield site and the proposed world-class learning facilities would help meet society’s current demands around  engagement, empathy and understanding and would give the Museum the opportunity to better reflect the breadth of London’s diverse communities (BAME, women and LGBTQ+).

 

In terms of economic and environmental impact, the Director stated that the aim was for this project to create very real social and public value. 1,700 new jobs would be created in the Museum and through its supply chain. Meanwhile, the 2 million people visiting each year would benefit businesses in the local area. The new Museum was also expected to generate a huge £755 million in GVA to the economy over a ten year period and that economic growth would be spread right across London to all boroughs. With regard to climate change, Members were informed the Museum were aiming for a BREEAM rating of excellent with an extensive plan that would see their CO2 emissions reduced by 42%, all of which were part of the design principles which encompass and embrace the circular economy.

 

Finally, the Director spoke on the Museums vision and this extraordinary, once in a generation, opportunity created through this design for its galleries, shops and places where people can meet, research and delve into the London Collections. The Museum’s plan was to be the most open, accessible and connected museum ever. As well as connecting with people, the Museum would connect with the surrounding neighbourhood and they themselves would also be connected with unparalleled transport links, right in the centre of the City of London. The Director concluded by thanking Officers for their diligence in bringing this application forward and stated that she was joined today by several colleagues – Paul Williams, Lead Architect, Stanton Williams and his colleague Rawdon Pettitt. Roy McGowan, Highways Advisor, Momentum Transport, Alec Shaw, the Museum of London’s Project Director and Jeremy Randall, Partner, Gerald Eve LLP – all of whom were able to respond to any technical questions Members might have.

 

The Chair thanked the Director for her contribution and invited questions from Members.

 

A Member questioned why the Museum were fixed on visitor numbers of 2 million per annum which was a significant increase on the Museum of London’s visitor numbers over the past two years but was much less than some of the main competitor museums in London which attracted 4-6 million per annum and therefore seemed rather modest. The Director reported that a number of studies had been carried out from the beginning of this project, through to the present day, looking at the likelihood of visitor numbers and needed to arrive at a number for the Museum’s business case. Others had similarly suggested that this was a rather modest projection but for business planning purposes and to create the design of the museum with all of its functionality, this number had been arrived at and plans were now working around this to create the facilities to accommodate this number of visitors. The Director stated that she hoped that in the future, the Museum would be dealing with the problems of absolute success but the current projections had been based on a wealth of information and intelligence.

 

The Member went on to state that, in his opinion, the design did not take full advantage of the logistical advantages that the site offered and was disappointed to see that, with approximately 80% of visitors to the new museum presumably set to arrive from Farringdon Station and being directed up to the museum via Cowcross Street, a huge opportunity was being missed in not having a dedicated and safer route particularly for visiting school parties. He questioned whether the Director was disappointed at not being able to secure this. The Director stated that the Museum was hugely ambitious as an organisation but were working within the designs which they felt are appropriate. The Director asked Roy McGowan to also comment on this particular point. Mr McGowan confirmed that there were conversations with Islington Council, TfL and the City of London Corporation very early on in the project and in the early stages of the Crossrail proposals but it was clear that this would be a very difficult route to achieve. More recent conversations with Islington Council’s Transport Department had confirmed that a dedicated route for the Museum would not be achievable now given how far advanced the Crossrail station works are.

 

Another Member repeated that he remained very concerned about coexistence. Members were being told that, because of the Act, that it may be that the Poultry Market may take some time to be declared surplus. His question to the Director was therefore whether it was possible to phase the development to enable a period of transition where the General Market and those areas that were surplus could be developed but the Poultry Market was not so that the Market could continue operations until it was able to be properly relocated whether that was to Barking or elsewhere in due course. Secondly, the Member questioned coexistence in terms of operational hours and deliveries and asked whether the Director would accept that there should be restrictions placed on the Museum to ensure that the meat market was still able to function as it needs to. The Director reported that the issue of phasing had been looked at in great depth but that it was virtually impossible to do a phased design. She asked Paul Williams to comment further on the technicalities of this. Mr Williams reported that plans for the Poultry Market involved a temporary gallery but also a permanent collection and research laboratories below ground all of which were a key part of the Museum’s vision. Without these and the educational areas and loading bays as part of the overall plan, it was unlikely that this would be a viable option. Consideration was given to using parts of the Annexe building for this purpose as part of a phased development but the spaces that this offered were not appropriate for housing this, even in the interim. The Director clarified that this application was for the full scheme. In terms of operational hours, the Director reiterated that the Museum would very much relish the opportunity to work alongside a functioning meat market and felt that this would help to tell the story of London in a very evocative and compelling way. She felt that the Museum had provided assurances around how the hours of its operation would work with those of the market and invited Roy McGowan to comment further. Mr McGowan reported that this had been examined in great detail and reported that there was a servicing area located underneath the General Market accessible via a ramp previously utilised for the Crossrail construction works. This could be fully self-contained for the needs of the market and waste management. A further servicing area would be situated to the north side of the Poultry Market within an area that was not currently heavily utilised by vehicles for the market itself. All of the servicing for the new Museum could be accommodated within this area as detailed within the transport reports. There would be limited on-street servicing for when the museum held events and this would be in the late afternoon period and therefore not impact on market operations. From the studies undertaken, when the large market vehicles begin to arrive in the evening, there was plenty of capacity to accommodate them. The Market loading areas began to be more fully utilised from midnight onwards and, again, the museum operations would not impact on this. The market area was generally cleaned from 7-8am each morning and returned to commuter/pedestrian movements soon afterwards which is when the museum would expect to see the arrival of visitors to the area. Co-existence, from all of the detailed studies carried out by the applicant, therefore looked to work well.

 

A Member questioned why the BREEAM ratings for the Annexe buildings would only seek to be ‘very good’ which fell short of policy requirements. More broadly, he asked how the carbon target reduction figure of 58% based on the energy statement had been arrived at within the context of all now wanting to see net zero carbon within a reasonably short space of time and certainly within the early life of the proposed development. The Director responded that it was really important to recognise that the new museum would be inhabiting old buildings which came with inherent issues around this. She also asked Members to consider the fact that the development would be re-using an old building itself as being a very sustainable approach. The Director invited Rawdon Petitt to comment further. Mr Rawdon commented that he felt it was clear from the submission that the applicant was committed to environmental and sustainable causes and that this was at the core of these proposals. He added that they were also trying to work within the context of existing buildings. With regard to BREEAM ratings both the design team and the applicant have ambitions to achieve the highest credentials possible but, in calculating ratings, several factors are taken into account around the extent of work being carried out. With regard to the Red House, what was referred to as a ‘category A’ fit out would be undertaken which would provide additional points and achieve and excellent rating, however, with the fish market, a ‘shell and core’ approach was being carried out to provide maximum flexibility and also to retain a lot of the historic character of the space – this meant that less points were awarded taking the rating to just below excellent. The design team had, however, continued to look at ways in which they might be able to gain further credit and it was their intention to work with the applicant to explore this in future stages as development progressed. Jeremy Randall spoke to state that the scheme was exemplary in energy terms and that a 58% reduction in carbon was extremely good having regard to the nature and fabric of the buildings. The proposed connection to Citigen also helped with the overall reduction. Members were informed that the 58% reduction was set against a benchmark of the Building Regulations, Part L, 2013 and the Stage 3 assessment carried out had considered this. As the development progressed through further stages this was expected to improve. Some of the carbon reduction achieved would be dependent on how Citigen operates and decarbonises in coming years.

 

Another Member spoke to commend the vision, stating that she could not think of a more appropriate site to move the museum to. She went on, however, to seek further clarity and assurances around co-existence with the existing market which could remain on site for some years. She noted that the Museum had submitted a further consultation addendum in May 2020 which addressed relocating the markets ancillary facilities, the public realm and highway proposals but questioned whether the Director felt, given that this had been submitted in the midst of the current pandemic, that the market traders had had sufficient opportunity to digest and respond to this information. Finally, she asked whether the Director was assured that, if the market did not move from its current site, this scheme was viable, particularly if the Poultry Market were not available. The Director reiterated that this planning application was for the General Market, the Poultry Market and the Annexe buildings and that the Museum believed that the relocation of the market was a City of London Corporation matter.

 

The Chair asked that Members now move to debate the application.

 

A Member spoke to record his strong support for the application which he felt would provide a great new home for the Museum of London to expand in a location with the best accessibility in London. It would also provide a major anchor for the Culture Mile and primed the regeneration of this area, especially the General Market and Annexe buildings. He added that, over the past 25 years, he had been involved with this site, including with the two previously aborted schemes for these buildings where it had been clear from the eventual outcome of the two applications that the Government’s Planning Inspectorate was not prepared to countenance a commercially viable solution for the site. Instead, they were prepared to see the site deteriorate until a funder could be found to expend huge resource just to retain buildings. He felt that the City were therefore very fortunate, after a quarter of a century, to find both a very suitable occupier and funders prepared to pay the cost of building retention and hoped to see the scheme before the Committee approved today and eventually fully developed. However, he stated that the cost to the public purse as a result of previous decision delays occasioned by the Planning Inspectorate should be publicly recognised and steps taken to avoid a similar repetition.

 

Another Member stated that he had some questions arising from both the applicant and the objector speeches. He added that this application was for a site within his Ward and had both positive and negative attributes. The positive would be moving the museum into a building which could suit its future needs, the negative was around the need to coexist with what was already on site. He went on to state that this was not an application for the General Market building only but also for the Poultry Market and that he remained unsatisfied that this aspect of the scheme could work. He noted that Officers had confirmed that the development of the Poultry Market would not be permitted until the Act was changed and that it was presumably unlawful, therefore, to expect this to go forward in the absence of this. This could perhaps be overcome by phasing the scheme but, as the applicant had stressed, this could not be done. The Member noted that the GLA had also posed a very specific question around whether, despite a loss of 27 market stalls, the overall functionality of the remaining east and west central market would be unaffected. That assurance was not, however, given, neither was information as to where the ancillary facilities could be relocated despite reference at paragraph 111 to this being investigated by the City as landlord. The Member concluded by stating that he was keen for the museum scheme to work but, in the absence of a phased approach and no guarantees as to the market vacating this site, he was not satisfied that it could whilst also ensuring that the overall functionality of the remaining market was not affected as per the planning steer from the Mayor. He stated that he was deeply disappointed to be presented with this report which did not resolve the problems around co-existence that were discussed over two years ago and that a solution around phasing had not been identified. This was a land-use matter, with a public duty for the City Corporation to maintain a market in the centre of London until such time as Parliament directed otherwise. Planning Policy also underlined the need to support the market. He was of the view that the Museum had now extended the scheme to the maximum with no interim plan as to how the market could continue to provide its critical function as they had done during the current pandemic. He asked that the applicant revisit these issues within this complex and important project in which coexistence was critical and not adequately covered by conditions and planning obligations as currently drafted. He asked Officers whether they would agree that, at the moment, the remaining function of the east and west central market is affected. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that, on coexistence in terms of servicing, these elements had been reviewed by the City’s own highways team, TfL, the Market Superintendent and Momentum who had addressed the Committee earlier. He added that there were plans for some facilities within the Poultry Market to relocate into the General Market and that it was his understanding that the applicant would be willing to have this as a condition of permission, to ensure that these works were in place before implementation. The Chair requested that Officers seek some clarity from the applicant on exactly what that condition would be so that Members could be updated prior to a decision being taken.

 

Another Member referred to the Museum of London wishing to relocate from its present site and wishing to have planning permission granted now to facilitate its raising of funds for a proposed opening on site in 2024 given that both matters were mentioned within the report. He questioned Officers as to whether these matters were relevant planning considerations. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director confirmed that funding arrangements were not a relevant planning consideration and did not inform Officers recommendations. The fact that the museum wished to relocate from their current site was, however, thought to be relevant and a material consideration as it underpinned their rationale for this application. The Member responded to question why funding had therefore been included in the report without highlighting that it was not a relevant planning consideration to ensure that Members did not decide the application for the wrong reasons and to make it clear that there was no urgency attached to this. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that this was background information in terms of information submitted by the applicant in support of the application but was not a key driver in terms of the recommendations. He accepted that this point could have been made clearer in the report and that there was no urgency around approving the application in relation to funding as this was not a relevant planning consideration.

 

Another Member spoke to comment on the fact that these proposals were around a very clearly underdeveloped and underutilised part of the City which many would like to see rejuvenated, enlivened and brought to greater public and social benefit. He added that it was very important now that Officers were absolutely clear as to what could practically and realistically be conditioned in so far as coexistence was concerned. His specific question, given the embracing and acceleration of the use of active transport, was around the provision for short stay cycle parking. He remarked that, bearing in mind the projection for 2 million visitors a year, this scheme needed to work a lot harder to provide for this. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director responded that the key part of this scheme to enable coexistence was the Section 278 works which would be refined to ensure that these broad stakeholders were taken into account. The information contained within the transport addendum was one potential solution and the scheme would have a 5 year condition. In terms of short term cycle spaces, Officers reported that cycle parking had now become much more critical in current circumstances with people needing to avoid public transport in a way that wasn’t previously the case. As a result, including significant amounts of public cycle parking around the museum and around the Culture Mile area more broadly would be a key consideration in developing both the Section 278 and the Culture Mile proposals.

 

The Chief Commoner spoke to report that he had campaigned for over two decades now to get the meat market moved from the centre of London to a more suitable location. He commented that, beyond planning, this was also a huge political issue and that he had sympathy with the SMTA’s views that this application was premature. He asked that the Chair consider discussing this matter with the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee and others to ask that negotiations take place with all of the Smithfield Traders so that an overall positive political climate in which to foster and advance plans for the market could be established. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that he did not feel that there were grounds for deferral of this application on the grounds that it was premature. 

 

The Chair interjected to clarify that the Committee were here to decide on this planning application and to weigh up the public benefits versus the loss of some of the market and market facilities as very clearly summarised by the Chief Interim Planning Officer and Development Director in concluding his original presentation. The working of the market alongside the museum, if consent was granted, was an important planning consideration but was a separate matter in relation to the physical space given to those various elements. He added that it appeared that Officers were indicating that there was some latitude as to the facilities that could be afforded to the market in terms of relocation and asked that they clarified this point or whether Members were actually faced with a decision as to the potential loss of these facilities to be weighed up against any overall public benefits. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that Officers could come up with a Grampian condition to ensure that the future of these facilities was satisfactorily addressed prior to the commencement of works. The Chair asked that the details of this be clarified for Members in due course.

 

Another Member spoke to commend Officers on a very comprehensive report and reported that he had also written to request some of the supporting information around the transport assessment. He went on to state that his main concern was that the Committee seemed to be considering a planning application for a very interesting project but one that was done in isolation in terms of the public realm and wider proposals for West Smithfield and that he would have liked to have seen a sort of Masterplan in terms of this. He added that much of the public realm appeared to be confined to a small area around the market and the Annexe buildings and would be subject to a Section 278 agreement which had not yet been agreed. Officers made reference to this at paragraph 443 of the report and indicated the areas they hoped to reach agreement on but the Member stated that he was surprised that there were not proposals for the pedestrianisation of the west part of Smithfield Road (the road between the new museum and the Annexe buildings) as he felt that this could help ensure the safety of visitors, particularly school parties. He concluded by stating that this was pre-emptive in a sense as a lot of the short stay cycle bays were being situated around the Rotunda.

 

At this point, the Chairman sought approval from the 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.

 

Officers reported that the concept for the Section 278 works were being done in close coordination and cooperation with the emerging public realm in this area. The Museum had been in close contact with the Culture Mile team and those designing the public realm to ensure that the bigger picture was not lost sight of. The proposals were operating at slightly different timescales but this did not mean that they could not and would not be appropriately coordinated. In terms of changes to the public realm and the highways that were being considered as a result of the museum’s application, these fell into two categories – one was essential, including the facilitating of school children circulating safely around the site and a second category of changes that was desirable in terms of creating a world-class public realm around a world-class museum. It was unclear at this stage whether this second category of changes would be delivered as part of the initial Section 278 agreement, a subsequent 278 agreement or as part of the Culture Mile proposal. This would depend, to some extent, on the timing around these proposals being brought forward and the timing of the markets move to Barking if that were to proceed as currently planned. The second category of desirable but not necessary works would include the pedestrianisation of west Smithfield and it was recognised that this was probably not achievable in the first instance where significant HGV access would still be required to the museum. This had therefore been assessed specifically and Officers considered that widening the footways would allow the museum and the market to coexist safely without necessarily needing to pedestrianise the area. The Chair added that a Public Realm Working Party had also been established for this area which he was chairing and was taking a wholistic approach to how this area should look and feel with work moving at pace.

 

The Deputy Chairman stated that he was of the view that this was one of the most important and exciting cultural applications that this Committee had considered during his tenure. If supported today, the scheme would contribute hugely to the regeneration of a fundamental part of the City that this organisation had backed as the Culture Mile. He commended the applicant on the very sensitive ways that they were planning to use these remarkable buildings to create a huge visitor attraction for the City, the rest of London and beyond. He commented that it was rare for this Committee to be presented with a scheme that had so many public benefits and underlined that it was important for Members to focus on the application before them today. A lot of important debate had been engaged upon thus far around issues that were fundamentally important to many different stakeholders but were not the scheme presented today. This was not a phased proposal or an application for some of the buildings to be used and not others. He stated that he was very conscious, as were all Members, that there were major negotiations underway with the market tenants in the background but that those were not issues for this Committee to consider today. Political leadership was, indeed, needed over these issues as the Chief Commoner had suggested. The Deputy Chair went on to note that the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director had made reference to the Act and that Members had subsequently debated this but that this was also not relevant to the Committee’s deliberations. Often planning consent was granted where other issues still needed to be resolved outside of the planning process before works could ever commence and this would undoubtedly be one such scheme where this applied. He concluded by stating that he believed that this application should be granted and that, if it were, it would add to the City Corporation’s global status not only as a business city but also as a number one cultural destination.

 

Another Member spoke to reiterate that she thought that this was a fantastic vision for one of the most appropriate buildings in London. She did, however, still have concerns around the need to coexist with a busy market which was the current situation on site and could well be for some time. She agreed with the points already made by other Members around the application being premature and also around the great extent of the planning application which now included the still functioning Poultry Market. According to one of the representations, the City had now stopped leasing units in the Poultry Market which she found concerning. In fact, the Market may, in due course, need to expand because of increased business demand and there appeared to be a void of information as to how the market and the new museum would operate side by side successfully with this factored in or, indeed, if the facilities that were vital to the running of the market were to be relocated if the Museum was to expand into the Poultry Market. She added that the piecemeal approach being taken to the public realm also seemed to be a missed opportunity. Members needed to ensure that what was granted was deliverable and that both operations – the market and a new museum – could safely coexist and thrive given that the market itself was clearly a huge public benefit. She concluded by stating that she was of the view that this application was premature for all of the reasons she had outlined.

 

Officers robustly reiterated that they did not consider this application to be in any way premature and underlined that the Committee should not underestimate the vast amount of work undertaken by the applicant to ensure that, operationally, the market and museum could coexist without compromising one another. This had also been agreed with the Superintendent of the Market who oversee the operation of the market. Officers went on to read the suggested wording of the Grampian condition that they would be happy to impose concerning the ancillary market uses which currently exist within the Poultry Market. It was proposed that this read: “That no development take place in respect of the Poultry Market until the supporting facilities (which include but are not limited to APP facility, ancillary office areas, workshop stores, welfare areas, palette and packaging collection and forklift storage) have been satisfactorily relocated to an equivalent level of provision”. Officers requested delegated authority to finalise the wording of the condition in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman. A Member commented that, as the Deputy Chairman also sat on the Capital Buildings Committee where this scheme had already been debated, the wording of the condition should be negotiated with the Chair and another Member to avoid any potential misunderstanding from objectors. The Deputy Chairman commented that had he felt that there was any bias or predetermination on his part he would not have taken part in this debate and would not vote, as he intended to, on this application. He added that he was absolutely clear that the Capital Buildings Committee had looked at the scheme from the City Corporation’s perspective but did not get involved in any planning deliberations whatsoever. He therefore felt able to be part of this debate/vote and subsequently the consultation around a Grampian condition and ensuring that this was carried out.

 

In order to provide further assurances around concerns about prematurity, the Comptroller and City Solicitor reiterated that it was not unusual for many planning applications to have background issues that needed to be resolved ahead of development commencing. In terms of any concerns around existing leaseholders still being present on site, it was highlighted that this was also often the case and that, often, the granting of planning consent was conducive to moving forward any negotiations that were relevant to the site but outside of planning considerations. With regard to ancillary facilities and the issue of coexistence, Officers had proposed what was felt to be an enforceable planning obligation that should address Members concerns.

 

The Member came back to state that there were traders in the Poultry Market at present and that there was not scope for them to move into the east or west market. She questioned whether this matter would also, therefore be conditioned, so that existing traders would not be displaced until such time as adequate space was found for them to allow them to continue their business. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director clarified that this condition was not being proposed and that the report was very clear that there would be a diminishment in the traders from the Poultry Market. The Markets Team were trying to find alternative locations for the traders but had been unable to do so to date. The Chair added that Members were balancing the loss of some of the market against wider public benefit.

 

A Member spoke to state that he felt that this an incredibly exciting project, not least in educational terms, for what he felt was a rather unsung institution. However, he was struggling with this application for all of the reasons already outlined and also felt that it was therefore premature in coming forward. If, as he understood it, there was no scope for deferral, even for a short period, to resolve these points he would find it very difficult to support the application. Officers reiterated that the work already undertaken to date provided sufficient comfort to them on all of the points raised today and stressed that this work would continue under Section 278. The application was therefore for decision today.

 

Another Member spoke to state that he disagreed that this application was premature. He spoke on the current state of the building which he described as terrible and underlined that he therefore did not think that the Committee should delay a decision as this would only lead to the further deterioration of the building and the historic fabric.

 

Another Member spoke to express concern that many Members seemed to still be referring to issues that were not planning considerations. He underlined that planning permission could be put forward for land that an applicant did not yet own. Clearly if there was legislation that needed to be overcome in order for the development to proceed then that was the case, but it was not for this Committee to hold up the application on the basis that that legislative obstacle needed to be otherwise overcome. He added that he did not think deferring the application was an option and that he would be voting in favour for it today, putting aside non-planning considerations.

 

A Member highlighted that the report illustrated the sensitivity of the site and the strong feelings around its development. The issues for the meat traders needed to be resolved but, as had now been made clear by many, were not planning considerations. He added that these proposals would safeguard the future of these buildings after a hiatus of some 30 years and would bring significant social, cultural, educational and economic benefits to London and the UK. He urged fellow Members to join with him in strongly supporting this application.

 

A Member spoke again to make a point on the general application, noting that the report stated that “the scheme is driven by conservation and enhancement of the existing buildings which will be repaired and renewed to best conservation practice”. He commented that this preservation of our heritage which lies at the heart of the scheme, and is rightly celebrated, was not attributable to the City Corporation. He went on to state that, in the recent past, this Committee granted planning permission to demolish the General Market and Annexe – buildings that were saved by the intervention of the campaigning organisation Save Britain’s Heritage and, ultimately central government who overrode the City Corporation’s decision. Since Save Britain’s Heritage had been instrumental here, he asked that this Committee listen carefully to the views of this organisation on any future applications that come before Members.

 

The Chief Commoner spoke again to seek assurances from the Chair and the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director that they would really seek to re-engage with the SMTA so that, should this application be approved, a harmonious relationship was established. The Chair stated that, whilst he clearly agreed with the sentiment of what the Chief Commoner was saying, it had been made clear via Officer advice and by a number of Members now that this Committee were here to make planning decisions and it was his task to shepard this debate along these lines. He added that he was involved in the Public Realm Working Party as he had previously stated and offered Members his assurance that a wholistic approach was being taken to this. However, again, at this stage, it was not appropriate for the Committee to look beyond the application in this regard, other than to note that the City Corporation had very large aspirations in this regard in its transportation capacity.

 

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them. The Town Clerk noted that Judith Pleasance and Oliver Sells QC had indicated that they would not be participating in this vote. The vote was conducted by rollcall led by the Town Clerk with those Members present and eligible to vote asked to also confirm that they had been present for and able to hear the entirety of this item.

 

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 20 votes

                                                 OPPOSED – 2 votes

 There was 3 abstentions – 1 Member who had missed   part of the Officers presentation due to connectivity issues and 2 Members who had joined the meeting in the middle of the debate .

 

RESOLVED - That:

 

(1)       Planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance

with the details set out in the schedule attached to the report and subject to:

 

(a) the Mayor of London being given 14 days to decide whether to allow the

Corporation to grant planning permission as recommended, or to direct

refusal, or to determine the application himself (Article 5(1)(a) of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008);

 

(b)  planning obligations and other agreements being entered into under

Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980 in respect of those matters set out in the report, the decision notice not to be issued until the Section 106 obligations have been executed;

 

(c)   the detailed wording of the Grampian condition concerning the ancillary market uses which currently exist within the Poultry Market being delegated to officers to finalise in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman.

 

(2) Agreement in principle be granted that the land affected by the building, currently public highway and land over which the public have right of access, including West Poultry Avenue, may be stopped up to enable the development

to proceed and, upon receipt of the formal application, officers be instructed to

proceed with arrangements for advertising and making of a Stopping-up Order

for the various areas under the delegation arrangements approved by the

Court of Common Council.

 

(NB: The consideration of the Listed Building Consent application (19/01344/LBC) was set out in the report for the planning application, but the recommendation and draft decision were not set out in the Committee papers and therefore this application for LBC will be determined under delegated authority pursuant to the Scheme of Delegations to Officers (Adopted 18^th July 2019).