Agenda item

Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding an application for 1 Paul’s Walk, EC4V 3QH, specifically, removal of louvred upstands and the introduction of new hard and soft landscaping alongside remedial public realm and associated works.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director introduced the scheme by stating that this application was linked to the application agreed by the Committee at the previous item and situated on the same site. Members were shown images of the proposed location – a raised area of louvres and granite on the western size of Norfolk House that was currently within the demise of a restaurant. Proposals centred around dropping this platform area down to the level of the surrounding walkways as well as the installation of three 60cm high granite clad planters containing herbaceous perennials. Members were shown the view looking west towards the scheme that they ad just approved with the louvered wall and its replacement with the lower raised planters shown in the foreground. Members were also shown the view from Trig Lane looking east where, again, in the foreground, the louvered granite and the planters could be seen. Members were informed that Officers considered this to be a significant visual improvement, improving access across the site and also very beneficial in terms of increased biodiversity.

The Town Clerk introduced Mr Thomas See, a resident of Norfolk House and registered objector and invited him to address the Committee.

Mr See began by stating that it was not true to say that the existing podium area was in the demise of the restaurant as it was in the demise of Norfolk House. He went on to state that Norfolk House was quite an extensive, elevated, podium area that projected outwards to the west and wrapped around the building over the roadway onto the main entrance lobby. The applicant had applied to demolish this podium and bring it to ground level, despite it being an integrated part of Norfolk House. Residents were wholly opposed to its demolition. Mr See added that the podium had a number of elements and that an inner part of this was used for outside dining by the Norfolk House restaurant for which residents owned the headlease. This area offered impressive views of the riverside walkway that were not afforded from ground level and residents were keen to preserve this. The podium also supported a mature tree with planting along the edge of the podium providing screening for Norfolk House. This was the only tree within this vicinity and residents would therefore like to see it preserved in line with the City Corporation’s own policies. Mr See referred to images of the view of the podium from the entrance to Norfolk House, beside the roadway. Here the podium was 2.7m deep and provided a buffer from the roadway and security for ground floor windows. Mr See commented that the presence of the raised podium immediately highlighted that the new Millennium Bridge House scheme would be built too close to Norfolk House and referred to images which depicted how the new building extension with its cantilevered upper floors would have an overbearing presence over a too narrow public walkway. He added that this was an important part of the riverside walkway, just metres away from Millennium Bridge. Mr See noted that the applicant had avoided providing any images of this pinchpoint location in relation to the elevated podium and residents had therefore had to commission these images for themselves some of which had already been shared by Mr Lowndes in his presentation on the previous application. Images depicting the podium to the left of Norfolk House best demonstrated how enclosed the space between the podium and the newly approved building would be. He added that the narrowness here would be out of keeping with the sense of space experienced elsewhere on the riverside and highlighted how unacceptable this would be. Mr See concluded by underlining that Norfolk House residents owned and had total legal control of the podium and would not grant permission for it to be lowered. Secondly, he stated that residents were keen for the applicant to properly address the impact of their development plans on the public realm instead of hiding behind proposals to remove the podium.

 The Chair thanked Mr See for his contribution. There were no questions from Members.

The Town Clerk then introduced Mr Duncan Roe of Beltane Asset Management to address the Committee. Mr Roe reiterated that the applicant genuinely hoped that they could work with the Norfolk House residents to find a solution that was beneficial to all and particularly the public realm. He added that the ownership of the restaurant terrace and the surrounding louvres was layered and complex and not quite as straight forward as Mr See had articulated. This was the reason that this element of the scheme had been split out into a separate application. The applicant owned the land from the basement up to the base of the restaurant terrace. Members were informed that there was redundant generator equipment beneath this that would be removed as part of wider proposals. This presented the opportunity to improve the public realm on St Paul’s Walk and install new hard and soft landscaping. The applicant did not propose to alter the size of the podium or the extent of the planting, it would just be on a level with the city walkway and the restaurant itself. The applicant felt that the existing granite and air louvres were not complimentary to the surrounding townscape and, as noted within the Committee report, the alterations were considered to be beneficial to the public realm and the locality. Mr Roe added that Beltane had met with the very experienced  restauranteur at the North Bank Restaurant and reported that he was very supportive of these proposals and the lowering of the podium to the ground floor as they felt that this would offer the restaurant more prominence and better access.

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

A Member referred to images of the existing view from Paul’s Walk/Trig Lane depicting the generator and the high wall and asked the applicant to explain whether the windows behind this were part of residential flats. If so, the installation of planters in this location might be a concern with the public being allowed to sit here at any time of the day or night. Mr Roe commented that the windows shown were part of one of the residential units. He went on to state that the landscape architect for this scheme – Andy Sturgeon – had designed it in such a way that it was felt to be more beneficial to residents and provide these windows with more light. It was, however, recognised that the design of the planters would require further thought to ensure that privacy was retained. Jeremy Randall added that the detailed landscaping scheme would be reserved for planning condition and that the size of the terrace would not be altered, it would simply be lowered in an attempt to improve the public realm.

The same Member went on to question Officers as to how residential amenity would be protected with a proposed design which could allow people to sit outside residential windows at any time of the day or night on a busy thoroughfare. She added that she also had concerns as to the overhang of the now approved scheme at Millennium Bridge House providing an attractive area/shelter for the City’s homeless population to dwell in and stressed that problems such as these should be designed out of schemes, not in. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director that Officers would ensure that these concerns were picked up within the guiding brief for the landscaping plan.

Another Member questioned Officers on the public cycle rack depicted in some of the images and suggested that this seemed to be inconsistent with the fact that cycling was forbidden in this area and that there was a sign to this effect close by. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director clarified that the cycle racks were in relation to the previous application and stated that he understood these concerns and that they were taken into account in limiting the number of short stay cycle spaces that could be delivered on this entire site. The spaces were located here so that they were set away from the riverside walkway and did not appear to be an invitation for cyclists to utilise this area.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them. 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 – 24 votes

                                                 OPPOSED – 2 votes

 There was 1 abstention.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule.