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 15 Minories, 57-60 & 62 Aldgate High Street and 1 Little Somerset Street, London, EC3, specifically, the demolition of existing structures, and erection of a mixed use office building Class B1(a), including ground floor Class A1, Class A3, and Class A4 uses. (30,901 sq. m. gea.).

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director presented the application and also drew Members’ attention to the fact that an addendum to the report had been circulated and published yesterday afternoon as had some late representations from an objector. Members were informed that the site in question had a very long and convoluted planning history, spanning back more than 15 years. Officers commented that this was probably a reflection of the challenging nature of the site which had a number of subterranean constraints such as tunnels. It was highlighted that this was a key, strategic location for the City, on the eastern gateway to the City, directly opposite Aldgate tube station.

Members were shown images of the existing site which Officers referred to as undistinguished introduction to the City. Officers reported that, in 2014,  this Committee had resolved to grant a fairly transformational Master Plan to address this entire site going as far down as to the Guinness Estate at the northern end which involved three separate buildings – one residential block to the south, a hotel scheme in the centre and an office scheme on Aldgate High Street. There was therefore a permission which had been implemented on this site and the southern residential building had been built out to shell and core, the hotel building was nearing completion and set to open in Spring 2021. This proposal therefore only related to the office component of the scheme which was largely similar to what had already been granted with the only real change being that the footprint of this scheme now extended eastwards to incorporate Rennie House which had now been acquired by the applicant and also the Still and Star public house which was a key part of these proposals.

Members were shown images comparing the existing, consented and newly proposed schemes from Aldgate High Street looking east.

With regard to the Still and Star, Officers reported that this was an early/mid 19^th century public house known as a ‘slum pub’ which had been the subject of quite substantial alterations both internally and externally and was therefore a shadow of its former self. The building was not listed or situated in a Conservation Area however, it did have sufficient charm and significance to be given the title of non-designated heritage asset but this did not confer additional protection on the building. Officers went on to report that its setting had been greatly changed – it had once sat in an intimate and domestic alleyway but was now surrounded by car-parking space in a rather wind-wept area of paving. Members were shown an aerial view of the site looking north as well as an image of the view of the Still and Star from Little Somerset Street in its current setting.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that he wanted to clarify from the outset that the first round of consultation on this scheme had involved the demolition of the Still and Star but did not propose its replacement on the site. This consultation had received approximately 270 objections concerning the loss of the Still and Star. As a result of this and the designation of it as an asset of community value by the City, following a campaign headed by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale), the applicant re-designed the scheme to reinstate the Still and Star slightly to the east of where it was currently situated. This was the subject of a further round of consultation where objections to this were still lodged but far fewer than had been the case previously. Perhaps most significantly, the East London and City branch of CAMRA had not objected to the current scheme.

Members were shown images and provided with an overview of the ground floor plan of the current proposals. These demonstrated that the site was sat largely on top of the District and Circle Line subterranean railway tunnels just under the surface. Members were shown images of the proposed structural grid that would be required to support the building above. Critically, the footprint of the existing Still and Star sat in the area where it was possible to come to ground in terms of foundations. The applicant had investigated the possibility of doing so with the Still and Star in situ but this was not feasible. The building was therefore set to be reimagined and relocated elsewhere on the site resulting in an additional 90 sr. m. for the building and more than double the active pub frontage with a prominent frontage onto Aldgate High Street. At ground floor, proposals were for an office reception facing out onto Aldgate High Street with a retail element on the north-east corner which was critical, for Officers, to enliven Aldgate and a new, reimagined Harrow Alley. The southern side at ground floor level would also be retail throughout and would include an entrance to cycle storage space. The new pedestrian route, both in terms of covered walkways and externally are provided at very generous width which would allow for very good pedestrian comfort levels as well as things such as tables and chairs.

Officers reported that stopping up proposals were around a relatively significant area and that a new dedicated public highway would be provided along the newly reimagined Harrow Alley which was considered acceptable.

At basement level, the subterranean constraints were clear. Officers commented that this was an excellent scheme in terms of cycling provision and that it exceeded both the short-term and the long-stay cycling provision expectations of the London Plan providing 54 short stay spaces at ground floor level and 365 long-stay cycle spaces.

Officers went on to report that the transformational Master Plan for this site granted in 2014, saw the amalgamation of servicing for the residential, hotel and office elements of the scheme at a single point to minimise vehicle intrusion into the public realm. At basement level there was proposed to be an integrated servicing arrangement with the office, hotel and residential building as well as the Still and Star. In addition, this would be consolidated to off-peak deliveries and a Delivery Service Plan would be required as part of the Section 106 agreement. The conditions preventing night-time deliveries would also be carried over due to nearby residential dwellings.

In terms of the office floor plating, the expansion of the footprint to the east provided for a much more successful office floorplate that was capable of being flexibly subdivided by tenants to incorporate things such as co-working spaces . It had been designed with a view to being responsive to the changes in office demands which had been accelerated due to COVID-19. The proposals included an uplift of 10,000 sq. m. in office space over and above the consented scheme which was a very generous contribution to the City Corporation’s target on this. Moving up through the building and concentrating on upper level floors, roof terraces were to be provided on a number of levels and Members were informed that there would be an Environmental Health Condition limiting the use of these to avoid disturbances to residents nearby.

The Committee were shown an image of the east west cross section of the scheme depicting the reimagined Still and Star and the very generous 5m high, vaulted, walkways through the building which was highlighted as a very dynamic and striking feature of the design. Members were also shown existing and proposed aerial views of the site, depicting it in its wider context and illustrating that the proposed height of the building was comparable with other buildings in the vicinity. Officers underlined that this was a critical area in terms of the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, in particular from Queen’s Walk and that the height of the proposed building had been negotiated to ensure that there was no harm to the view of the White Tower.

Members were informed that the design approach largely mirrored that of the previously consented scheme, involving glazed frontage and curvaceous aluminium fins. Members were shown images of the North, South, East and West elevations of the proposed building.

Members were informed that a new pedestrian crossing would be installed at Aldgate High Street with the approval of TfL. With regards to the view from St Botolph Street looking west, the Committee were informed that there would be a marginal increase in the buildings footprint to the east but not to an extent that it was considered harmful to the setting of the Hoop and Grapes which was a listed building. Other views were shown with Officers highlighting that there would be no significant change between the consented and newly proposed scheme.

Officers went on to focus specifically on the Still and Str – a key element of the scheme. The Committee were shown images of the existing building from Little Somerset Street looking north depicting the red-brick clad elevation which bore little resemblance to its original appearance. Alongside this, Members were shown images of the consented and newly proposed scheme which illustrated that the consented scheme came very close to the Still and Star but that the proposed scheme would move Little Somerset House to the east and rename it ‘Harrow Alley’ with the Still and Star relocated to the right hand side of this. Members were also shown an image of the reimagined Still and Star from Aldgate High Street and given a rationale behind the reinvention of it as an architectural piece. The elevation on Aldgate High Street would be clearly visible from a wide area which would serve to increase its viability and widen its appeal. The architects had carried out a very thorough assessment of London pubs and had found that there were numerous examples of very successful premises that had the proposed layout of the reimagined Still and Star. Members were also shown comparative images of the existing and proposed setting for the Still and Star which depicted the significant increase in the elevation of the premises and its prominence but also the domestic quality of the architecture. The building would also be reinstated as part of a much more coherent alleyway than existed at present. It was felt that these measures, alongside the much increased footprint, would increase the Still and Star’s contribution to the social life of the City and its viability/popularity. Officers commented that the design approach was particularly creative and innovative with the architect proposing to take 3D scans of the existing facades of the Still and Star and reconfigure these in coloured concrete as a celebration of the existing building which would be displayed on Aldgate High Street. The reimagined Still and Star would include a roof garden including generous planting. Officers went on to comment that the care taken by the architect to assess the essential qualities of both the Still and Star and of a London pub had been particularly impressive and there were also proposals to reinstate a gin distillery here and to have a nursery for botanics for the gin. The interior of the premises would seek to replicate the historic look and feel of a typical London pub. This would be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

In summary, the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director commented that this was a very strategic scheme where existing permission had already been granted for the site. These proposals would be the final piece in the regeneration of an underutilised site that was currently somewhat of an eyesore in a key part of the City. Members were reminded that this was an extremely challenging site in engineering terms which these proposals had overcome in a very creative manner and would provide 28,000 sq. m. of high-quality and flexible office floor space which was an additional 10,000 sq. m. over the existing, consented scheme.  The proposals would also offer vibrant retail unit and a generous pedestrian route in pedestrianised public realm. It was a model scheme in terms of plans for servicing and cycle space. The Still and Star was, unfortunately, situated in one of the few areas of the site where it was possible to lay foundations and all options of retaining the building that had been considered had not proved to be feasible. Officers commented that, whilst the premises was an undesignated heritage asset it was a shadow of its former self and had been heavily altered. The pub was also an asset of community value due to its contribution to social life in the City and Officers were of the view that this was a very creative scheme in terms of reinventing and reinvigorating the Still and Star as a social and community asset. Officers felt that this was an accomplished, innovative, contemporary imagination celebrating the Still and Star’s history and its significance after the very thorough assessment carried out by the applicant and the architect. It was recognised that many of London’s most enduring pubs had a long history of rebuilding, remodelling and even relocation meaning that this was not alien or incongruous . The newly proposed Still and Star would be larger than the existing building with a 20% increase in floorspace and double the active frontage of the existing Still and Star which was somewhat lost in its current location. The new premises would have a prominent location on Aldgate High Street, with a long elevation along Harrow Alley and was felt to be a very accomplished and potentially award-winning re-birth of the Still and Star on a challenging site. It was felt that this would strengthen the long-term viability and popularity of the pub which would enhance its contributions serving the wider community.

The Deputy Chairman thanked Officers for their presentation and invited questions of Officers from the Committee.

A Member referred to the late representation received from the adjacent landowner requesting further conditions to ensure that there would be no future issues with their own redevelopment next door to this site. She also asked if there could be conditions to ensure that the Still and Star was not demolished or altered until the 3D castings of the pub had taken place. In terms of the community asset value of the Still and Star, the Member also questioned whether we were fulfilling the listing should the pub be relocated as proposed. Officers stated that they understood that there had been a lot of discussion between the applicant and the neighbouring landowner, commenting that this kind of relationship was quite commonplace in the City as Members would expect. Officers also reported that there was a condition applied that the City would approve details of the flank elevation as there were concerns that this should not be a dominant elevation and that it should be an active and not a dormant elevation. In terms of conditions relating to the proposed 3D castings, it was felt that this would be better captured via a Section 106 agreement which would be very thorough to ensure that this was delivered in its entirety. With regard to the pub being an asset of community value, it was reported that this was effectively a recognition that the Still and Star contributed to the social, community life of the City and it was felt that these proposals would only serve to strengthen this in terms of increasing its size and presence.

Another Member spoke to question the environmental aspects of the scheme, commenting that she had not found any information in the report about Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). She had, however, noted a lengthy email from Thames Water and asked Officers if they could provide any further explanation on this. Officers reported that the developer would need to enter into discussions with Thames Water to check that the capacity for drainage is sufficient to accommodate the development. With regards to SuDS, it was noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objections to scheme and that there were two conditions requiring further details of the design of the SuDS Strategy which was submitted as part of the application.

Another Member spoke to compliment the comprehensive background information provided on the scheme and questioned the letter received last week from the adjacent landowner and questioned whether it was the case, as stated within the report, that there would be a remaining gap between the sites that could potentially become a wind tunnel. If this were correct, she questioned whether Offices had been able to undertake any work to determine whether or not this would be acceptable in terms of wind standards. Officers responded to state that the reason that the building would be set back was to ensure that development of the adjoining site was not compromised. It was not envisaged that this would lead to any issues such as the creation of a wind tunnel but this would need to be addressed should a proposal come forward for the adjoining site. If this were the case, it was felt that this could be readily resolved with the use of things such as brise soleils.

A Member questioned the Environmental credentials of the building and noted that the report made reference to the ambition of achieving a BREEAM excellent rating and that this would be conditioned. He sought clarity on the fact that this was both agreed and understood by the developer. On carbon emissions, he also sought to confirm what energy performance certification level the developers were committed to, suggesting that this ought to be as high as possible. Officers reported that the developer was taking a very proactive approach to delivering a much improved BREEAM and carbon emission rating and that both of these points were conditioned to ensure the very highest achievable standards.

Another Member spoke to commend the comprehensive presentation of this project. He went on to question who the freeholder of the site was and whether the City of London had an interest. Officers reported that the applicant was 4C Hotels and confirmed that there was no City interest in the site. It was reported that TfL was the freeholder.

In response to questions, the Deputy Chair reported that there were no objectors or applicants representatives registered to address the Committee today.

A Member questioned whether the issue around rights of light to the adjoining site was a relevant planning consideration. Officers stated that this was a planning issue/material consideration in so far as the adjoining landowner had objected on the grounds of overlooking which was not felt to be a sustainable planning ground. However, it was noted that there was also a party wall issue to be resolved which was a civil matter.

A Member spoke again on the fact that the Still and Star was an asset of community value and, as such, was an important building which showed the social history of this part of the City. She noted that, in the addendum sent to Members yesterday, 4C Hotels would ensure that the name Still and Star would be retained but questioned whether the City Corporation ought to suggest a covenant to ensure that the reimagined Still and Star would remain in perpetuity on this site for as long as the building did given that they had recognised its historical importance. She questioned whether it was possible to condition this. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Dircetor reported that, should the applicant wish to change the use of the Still and Star, they would require planning permission from the City Corporation. In addition, the Section 106 agreement would ensure the delivery of this, its continuation and the appropriate look and feel of the building, ensuring that this was not diluted in the future.

Another Member also spoke on the rights of light issue and asked whether Officers could provide further information on this and explain the matter in the context of this application. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director clarified that rights of light was not a planning matter but a civil matter between adjoining landowners and that this should not therefore be taken into consideration by the Committee when deciding upon this application. The impact of a development on an amenity such as overlooking and daylight/sunlight was, however, a material consideration and it was clarified that Officers did not consider that this proposal caused harm in these respects.

Members proceeded to debate the application.

A Member highlighted that Officers had stated in their presentation that CAMRA had objected to the original proposal which had involved the demolition of the Still and Star but had then supported the revised proposal which involved a replacement. What had not been mentioned, was that the Victorian Society had objected to both proposals. The Member suggested that the views of the Victorian Society should be given greater weight when the preservation of heritage was concerned. Secondly, the Member went on to question the precise application of the relevant planning policy. He highlighted that this proposal entailed the demolition of a 200 year old public house of a rare historical type which had recently been listed as an asset of community value in order to make way for the substantial expansion of an already substantial proposed office development. The Member commented that, on the face of it, this breached policy CV1 of the emerging City Plan 2036 which states that “special consideration should be given to the protection of cultural facilities that are unique to the City and maintain an historic or cultural association with the Square Mile, including public houses which have community value”. The Member commented that this pub fell squarely within this description. He reported that the policy continued by stating that “the City Corporation will resist the loss of existing visitor, arts, heritage and cultural facilities unless replacement facilities of at least equivalent quality are provided on site or within the vicinity which meets the needs of the City’s communities”. The recommendation to this Committee was that it did not resist the loss of this existing heritage facility in spite of its rarity and community value. This was justified within the report by saying that replacement facilities of at least equivalent quality are provided in the form of a “reimagined”, new pub with the same name in a location that is more convenient for the developer. The Member commented that a new building in a contemporary style was not a replacement of a 200 year old building. He concluded by stating that this original pub was a small and rare piece of the City’s history which should not be sacrificed for an office development and yet more office space. When the application was assessed against the City’s relevant planning policy it should fail.

Another Member spoke to recognise that the Still and Star was an important part of this project but was by no means its only part. He added that the pub actually closed in October 2017 because it was unable to continue as a going concern. The objections received would indicate that the heritage site was more important than the pub as a business. The Member stated that he felt that the opportunity offered by the developer to give the pub more prominence on the high street and to make it an integral part of the new development would keep its heritage more alive than a disused, closed building in an undistinguished location. The Member also mentioned that the eastern City Business Improvement District strategy in place was also of relevance to this application and it should be borne in mind that there was a drive to see this part of the City improved with better facilities and he felt that this building would complement this approach.

A Member spoke in support of the application noting that he had also been involved in the 2007 and 2014 previously consented applications for this site. He described the proposals as a brilliant feat of engineering in an important location.  He felt that the reimagining of the Still and Star in a more prominent location should be supported and he congratulated the architects for its inclusion in the scheme. He added that his only concern was that discussions had not yet taken place with Thames Water in terms of resource for the site.

Another Member spoke on the proposed preservation of the Still and Star which was, at present, a rather run down building in a restricted access area. He was supportive of the reimagining of the pub which would be in a better location and larger than the existing premises, making it more commercially viable and therefore a real asset to the surrounding area and local community. He added that he felt that this application was the final piece in the jigsaw for this scheme and the redevelopment of this area which he intended to support.

Another Member spoke to report that the Still and Star was once an incredibly popular pub until local businesses had left the area. She went on to state that the pub was an important part of the City’s community history and that the fact that the building may be unattractive on the outside did not devalue it in terms of historical interest. She expressed her disappointment that the building was not able to remain in situ. With regard to Harrow Alley, she commented that the City had taken an entirely different view with regard to Vine Street where they had asked that this be reinstated with the new walkway built from here to Tower Hill. She added that alleyways and passageways defined the City of London. Finally, she requested further information from Officers on the wind effect that this building would have on Aldgate High Street and Aldgate Square which was described as ‘sitting wind’. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director assured the Committee that the wind effects had been modelled intensely and confirmed that the proposals were in compliance with the wind guidelines. It was felt that the wind conditions here would be conducive for people to sit and dwell here outside of the public house.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them within the report. 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 –   1 Vote

         There were 2 abstentions.

One Member present was unable to vote due to technical issues which had led to her missing part of the debate.

The application was therefore approved.

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

(a)  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 issues until the Section 106 obligations have been executed;

(b)  That Members agree in principle that the land affected by the proposal which is currently public highway and land over which the public have right of access (between Aldgate and Little Somerset Street that would be built upon if the development was implemented) 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.

(c)   That Members agree to delegate authority to officers and the Comptroller and City Solicitor to declare new highway or city walkway through the development in accordance with the principal reservations, limitations and conditions set out in the report.

(d)  That Officers be delegated authority to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in “Planning Obligations” under Section 106 and any necessary agreements under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1960.