Agenda item

A Member queried which provision of the Scheme of Delegations had been relied upon in granting planning permission for a new application for the redevelopment of 81 Newgate Street, which she considered was of broad interest. She asked why this application was not brought to committee, as happened with a previous one for the same redevelopment four years ago.

An Officer stated that the Court of Common Council approved the scheme of delegation in 2021. It set out the parameters in which delegated decisions could be taken. The Officer stated that in terms of the 81 Newgate Street application, it was granted under the scheme of delegation by delegated authority in September 2023 as it was compliance with planning policy and there were no broad interests considered. He advised that the scheme was a full application which comprised amendments to a scheme that was previously consented by the committee in 2021, which had been approved unanimously by 23 votes, with no abstentions.

The Officer stated that only three objections and two letters of support were received. The Officer stated that 9 objections were required for an application to be considered by the Planning Applications Sub-Committee. The Officer had discussed the matter in detail with the Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee who concurred that there was no broader interest and this application should be considered under delegated. authority, which it was.

In relation to concern raised by the Member that she was not aware of the application or decision until after it had been granted, the Officer stated he would look into this as the lists of consents issued and applications received were included within the agenda packs sent to Members.

A Member asked for clarification on whether the Chief Planning Officer accepted direction from the Policy Chairman. The Officer stated that the Policy Chairman reasserted the approach that planning in the City had to be positive, non-adversarial and solution-focused, and this was why it was an attractive place for developers and investors. The Officer added that the local plan proactively aimed to accommodate development, and increase the amount of office space. He stated that developers and investors were key to delivering those schemes so they delivered the economic benefits, the prosperity and jobs to maintain the City’s international position. Therefore, they were valued stakeholders and customers and complemented the City's strategic policy objectives. The Officer added that as public servants, planning officers were proud of being impartial and independent and offered objective planning advice based on policy and planning, judgement and ultimately the decision on planning rested upon the committee. The Officer stated that developers and investors formed part of a wider ecosystem of stakeholders and customers, all of whom Officers treated with fairness and impartiality.

The Member raised concern that this had not been considered to be of broad interest when the original planning application was of broad interest. She commented that there was a major change from the original application which would affect Destination City, in the loss of the roof terrace for the public to be able to view St Paul’s Cathedral and the surrounding area plus the loss of retail on the ground floor.

An Officer stated that the provision of the public terrace was part of the original scheme and was negotiated through robust negotiations by planning officers. The omission of that roof terrace was not a breach of policy and there was not a policy requiring such a terrace. Also, the roof terrace was not there to mitigate heritage harm. In addition, on the site originally, there were no retail units and so the loss of retail was not considered to be contrary to policy. The Member stated that whilst not against policy, she considered that this application should have been brought to committee for debate.

The Chairman stated that the correct process had been followed and the scheme of delegation had been approved by Members at the Court of Common Council.

A Member asked if, with the loss of the roof garden, compensatory benefits had been negotiated. The Officer confirmed that there was a very substantial contribution to the lighting of St Paul’s Cathedral as well as other environmental enhancements.

In relation to the matter of broad interest, the Officer stated that this was a matter of judgement and therefore Officers had engaged very closely with the Chairman of the Committee.

In relation to a Member’s question about tenancy, an Officer stated that the potential tenancy could not be given any weight in planning terms.

A Member stated that the London Wall lift had been out of service for several weeks. It was not a City lift but was part of the planning permission for London Wall Place. The Member asked if action could be taken to require the lift to be kept in service. Officers confirmed that would look into this matter.