Agenda item

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members received a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment which outlined Phase 1 of the project which involved S278 funded highway works to integrate the hotel development at 100 Minories into the City’s highway and Phase 2 of the project which involved public realm enhancements and the landscaping of Crescent.

The Chairman stated that a late public submission had been received and gave Members time to read it.

The Officer stated that there had been a delay in finalising the S278 agreement over several years and this had increased the costs. The costs had been reported to the hotel operator and the works could not proceed without payment. Any delays to the payment could result in further costs due to inflation.

The Officer stated that the design of the public realm enhancements had evolved following consultation and liaison with occupiers and TfL. She stated that TfL required 24 hour, 7 day a week access to their substation for the Circle and District Lines which was in Crescent and they had made comments on the design which Officers had worked to address. Officers had also worked with the Destination City team to accommodate more event activities. The team had advised that the ideal space for events and activities was 100 square metres. Officers had also worked with the relevant Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and had held a workshop to talk about possible events. She advised that Officers had held several meetings with the hotel and the hotel architects and had taken on board their comments, which had evolved over the consultation. The Officer stated that two options had been developed.

The Officer informed Members that the first option was similar to that approved in January 2023 by the Sub-Committee and the second option included more space for events. The Officer stated that consultation on this option had taken place. Numbers 6-7 and 8-11 Crescent were currently empty but contact had been made with the owner representatives and they had submitted letters of support. Tfl had also submitted a letter of support and a preference for option 2. The Officer stated that the BIDs considered that Option 2 met the needs of the community and was their preferred design. She advised that, generally those in support of Option 2 were in favour of the greening and landscaping at the edges of the space. The Officer stated that Option 2 also used climate action money and incorporated sustainable urban drainage so was a better environmental and more climate resilience scheme. There was also public seating and space for events and activities. The hotel had stated that they would prefer no permanent planting. Officers considered Option 2 to be the best option for the space and had received the most letters of support.

A Member stated that the scheme had evolved since the redevelopment of 100 Minories as it had become clear that the grassed landscaping was unsuitable as there was a railway line underneath it and there were issues with load-bearing and watering, as well as the access requirements for the sub-station. The Member stated that Tower ward was not lacking space with grass, trees and benches but was lacking activity space. She stated that the Sports Strategy and Destination City had sparked the imagination of the Aldgate and EC1 Business Improvement Districts and residents. She stated that she was concerned about a lack of consultation. The Member also stated that there were a number of open spaces in the ward in need of refurbishment including Trinity Square Gardens and the fenced off play equipment in Tower Hill Gardens. The Member stated that the scheme should be paused and revisited to consult the residents who had not been consulted and stated the importance of this when the Policy Chairman had a key policy to have a reset with residents. She also stated that the padel court, although temporary, had brought people into the area and stated that events had to be on a scale to make them viable. The Member stated that Option 2 included more space for activities but it was in the area that required constant access to the substation. She therefore raised concern that any activity equipment had to be able to move quickly if TfL required access to the substation. The Member stated that at the workshop held about the scheme, no consensus was reached and commented that the EC1 BID had concerns about the proposed trees. She suggested that a pause and deep dive would ascertain how the space could be used and during this time, funding could be put into Tower Hill Gardens to make it a welcoming entrance to the City with new play equipment and funding could be put into Vine Street’s railway bridge in order to link up with the Crescent. The Member stated that whilst the hotel might favour a quiet garden, residents were concerned that other quiet spaces had turned into beer gardens.

The Chairman stated that Tower Hill Gardens was a separate issue and advised that this was a standalone project and was included under Item 10 as a proposal to be allocated Section 106 funds.

The Chairman asked Officers to outline the engagement that had taken place with residents. The Officer stated that there were not any residents close to the site. She advised that there had been a letter drop of local occupiers but this did not include residential blocks as they were not close enough to the Crescent. The Officer stated that a workshop with businesses had been held but there had not been direct engagement with residents as they were not close to the site. She stated that this was in line with the consultations undertaken with this type of proposal. The Officer stated that if there were residents interested in the design, Officers could meet them. A Member stated there was a residential block on the other side of the Minories and also one at 100 Pepys Street and she considered that as stakeholders in the area, they should be consulted.

A Member raised concern that if the Crescent scheme was implemented and then buildings on Crescent were refurbished, there would be a cost in reinstating elements of the scheme. An Officer stated that any works could be accommodated and Numbers 6-7 had completed a refurbishment and provided a written comment that they supported the design and were keen for it to progress quickly as they considered that this would help them let their buildings. Officers had met with the managing agent of Numbers 8-11 who had advised them of the plans for refurbishment and provided written responses supporting the proposal. An Officer stated that discussions had taken place about how refurbishment works could be accommodated and Officers considered this could be done quite easily as the works were almost entirely internal so there would be limited impact on the highway.

A Member commented that there were voices against Crescent being an entertainment space and voices against the permanent greening of the space. The Member stated that the proposal was a compromise and whilst it would be possible to undertake further consultation, the key stakeholders had been consulted and the BIDs would be aware of local needs.

A Member stated that in recent years there had been a renewed emphasis on keeping fit and the City had a strategy on sports which needed to be implemented. He stated that the proposal would provide a combination of greening and a place to undertake sport. The Member commented that some people wanted greening, shrubs and seats and others wanted sports. He also stated that children’s playgrounds were lacking in Destination City and were required to get families into the City. The Member stated that he would like the surface of the central piece to be soft as this gave the ability to have events and also facilitate activities such as yoga. An Officer stated that having permeable paving on the north side of the space was an option but as the central area would be used for events, it would need to be hard wearing. The Officer stated that York Stone could take the weight of the vehicles that would need to drive across it to access the substation. The Member stated that hardwearing soft permeable paving was available.

The Chairman stated that the proposal aimed to strike a balance between providing space for events and leisure. If the greening was not included, there would be no climate resilience, biodiversity planting, trees, shade or sustainable drainage system. An Officer stated that from a policy perspective, Members of the Sub-Committee had challenged Officers several times to find more space for greening and more trees as the Climate Action Strategy was a relevant policy consideration. The Officer stated that this proposal allowed the Cool Streets and Greening money to be used and if hard landscaping was used, the money would be taken out of the project. There were also likely to be other areas with greater priority if some of the elements of greening could not be delivered into the space.

A Member stated that the BIDs had made it clear in the workshop that they wanted flexible space and that the EC1 BID had suggested an ice rink. The Member stated that pausing and consulting residents would enable a green element to be included but also enable flexibility and showcase the landscape design of George Dance the Younger in Crescent, which was of historical importance in the ward and in the City.

The Chairman asked Officers for more detail on the consultation. An Officer stated that there were no residents close to the site so those in the vicinity of the Crescent had been consulted. All the occupiers around the edge had been consulted, as had occupiers on Vine Street as far as America Square, as well as the two BIDS. There was a mail shot and a letter drop. Officers had undertaken research to find the owners of the empty buildings and Officers contacted them by email and letter. The Officer stated that the workshop was held in August.

An Officer stated that residents could be consulted through a letter drop. However, the design had evolved to meet every need that had been identified with event space, planting, the Crescent occupiers being satisfied, TfL being satisfied that there would not be any equipment that could not be dismantled quickly to give access to their substation and Officers did not envisage any more needs being established by doing this. Any redesign was likely to be very similar but there could be an issue of additional costs being incurred.

A Member stated that he wanted to be confident that part of the scheme would not need to be deconstructed to enable office refurbishment. An Officer stated that refurbishment works would be accommodated as part of the design development. A relationship had already been established with the managing agent for Numbers 8-11 and Officers would coordinate with them to avoid having to deconstruct any part of the scheme. She stated that this could include not planting the tree on the North side in the next planting season and planting it in the following planting season if that was in the way of the hoarding and she stated that this was the only risk that had been identified.

A Member welcomed the inclusion of trees and asked how the space would be maintained. An Officer stated that 20 years of maintenance costs were included in the project budget, the materials to be used were City palette materials so were quite easy to maintain, the planting would be climate resilient planting so that would have lower maintenance over time and the trees would be established and generally would not require watering after five years.

A Member stated that office workers had expressed concern about having active sport in front of their office. The Member stated that primarily the City was about office work and whilst sport was important, sporting facilities should be placed carefully so as not to cause issues for office workers.

A Member stated that visitors should be a main consideration as the City wanted to attract them to the City. He stated that it was difficult to ask visitors what they would like to see, so the City had to act on their behalf. The Member also stated that office workers should also be considered and attracting both groups to the City would result in more money being spent in the City.

A Member commented that the freeholder of the office block was in favour of activity space in front of the block. She raised concern that the activity zone in Option 2 was in the area where there had to be access for the substation. She suggested a pause to enable Officers to ensure all the design ideas had been captured.

The Chairman asked Officers to clarify the situation regarding access to the substation. The Officer stated that only activities with moveable equipment would be licensed. She advised that one of the issues with the current padel board court was that it was large-scale and the equipment would need dismantling if emergency access to the substation was required. In the future, licenses would be granted to smaller scale activities. Options had been considered with the Business Improvement Districts and all of these activities had dismantlable equipment.

An Officer commented that TfL had concerns about the padel board court. They were content for the license to be extended for the summer but were clear that they were not prepared to accept this permanently. The Officer stated that access to the substation was a constraint of the space and the area would be a flexible space with the ability to deliver events accommodate the needs of TfL plus the premises on the west side regarding their potential requirements for refurbishment. Members were informed that Officers had been working on the design over the last 12-18 months and the design had evolved over time.

A Member commented that sockets could be pre-built in the ground so sporting nets could be put up and removed quickly. An Officer stated that TfL understood the City wanted to change the nature of the space in terms of a permanent design and temporary usage. Only activities which would not put at risk other key aspects e.g., the servicing of the substation, would be licensed. If proposed equipment could not be dismantled in a reasonable time period, this would be discussed with TfL to ascertain if they were prepared to accept the use. The design of equipment would be important.

Having fully debated the application, the Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them.

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 4 votes

                                                 OPPOSED – 1 vote

                                                 There were no abstentions.

The recommendations were therefore carried.

Deputy Fredericks asked for her vote against the recommendations to be recorded.

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee

1.         Note the additional cost of £160,747 for Phase 1 (S278 Highway Works) to be funded in full by the owner and approve the revised total budget for Phase 1 of £705,525 (excluding costed risk);

2.         That Option 2 is approved for Phase 2 (Public Realm Enhancements to Crescent);

3.         That an additional budget of £47,000 is approved for Phase 2 to reach Gateway 5; 

4.         Agree the total estimated cost of Phase 2 at £900,000 - £1,228,000 (excluding risk);

5.         Agree the funding sources for Phase 2 set out in Appendix 3 of the Officer report.