Agenda item

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning the change of use of existing deep level tunnels (Sui Generis) to visitor and cultural attraction (Use Class F1(b)(c)), including bar (Sui Generis); demolition and reconstruction of existing building at 38-39 Furnival Street; redevelopment of 40-41 Furnival Street, for the principal visitor attraction pedestrian entrance at ground floor, with ancillary retail at first and second floor levels and ancillary offices at third and fourth levels, excavation of additional basement levels at 40-41 Furnival Street and 38-39 Furnival Street, and widening of lift shaft at 38-39 Furnival Street; creation of new pedestrian entrance at 31-33 High Holborn, to provide secondary visitor attraction entrance (including principal bar entrance), deepening of lift shaft at 31-33 High Holborn; provision of ancillary cycle parking, substation, servicing and plant, and other associated works. (Duplicate application submitted to the London Borough of Camden as the site area extends across the borough boundary).

 

The Town Clerk referred to those papers set out within the main agenda pack as well as the Officer presentation slides and an addendum that had been separately circulated and published.

 

Officers presented the application, stating that this was an application for the change of use of the existing tunnels, formerly known as the Kingsway tunnels, to a visitor and cultural attraction. Kingsway tunnels were located approximately 32 metres below ground, underneath the Central line. They ran beneath High Holborn and extended beyond the City of London’s northwest boundary over to the London Borough of Camden. The tunnel network offered approximately 8,000 square metres of subterranean floor space and included two tunnels of 5.1m diameter known as the North and South Streets which ran beneath High Holborn, and four large tunnels of 7.2 metre diameter to the south, known as the avenues.

 

Members were shown a diagram which highlighted the portion of the tunnels that fell outside the City's boundary line and was within Camden and the portion which fell within the City's boundary and represented 65% of the overall tunnel network.

 

The Officer advised that a duplicate application had been submitted to Camden Council which would be considered by their Planning Applications Committee on the 11 July 2024. Officers had been in discussion with Camden Officers to ensure coordination of all planning matters in line with both local planning authority requirements. The planning application was assessed independently by each local planning authority, with each being entitled to reach its own decision on the application.

 

Members were informed that the streets were built during the Second World War as shelters. However, they were never used as intended. Instead, they were converted to reserve government headquarters. Once the General Post Office took their possession in the early 1950s, the avenues were constructed. Subsequently, the tunnels became a telephone exchange and by 1990 their function came to an end. BT currently managed and maintained the infrastructure.

 

The Officer stated that today, there were only two remaining soft access points to the tunnels, one located at 31-33 High Holborn, in Camden and accessed by 1 Fulwood Place and one at 38-39 Furnival Street, located within the northwest side of the of the City. Members were shown an image of the above ground works including the existing access points in the City and Camden, and the building at 40-411 Furnival Street, which was adjoining to 38-39.

 

The Officer stated that the site in the City sat within the Chancery Lane Conservation Area. The Kingsway tunnels had been identified as a non-designated heritage asset due to its history and rarity.

 

Members were shown an image of the relationship between the bulk ground structures and the tunnels. Members were shown an image of the late 1990s, 6 storey office building with a basement level. Its architecture and setting were not considered to be a positive contributor to the conservation area. Members were shown an image of the building which formed part of Kingsway tunnels. It housed a round shaft which was built for a goods lift to serve the east side of the tunnels historically and was currently not in operation.

 

Members were shown views of the site facing south towards Furnival Street and north towards Holborn. For completeness, but not for consideration by the Sub-Committee, Members were shown an image of the site in Camden which was currently the only access point to the tunnels.

 

In order to enable the creation of a principal entrance and ancillary spaces to the proposed large underground cultural exhibition space, the existing buildings at Furnival Street would be demolished and reconstructed. The reason for demolition arose from the requirement to enlarge the existing shaft and provide escape routes and from the demand for plant space that needed to be accommodated in the basement levels. The loss of office space at 40-41 Furnival Street was considered to be acceptable in policy terms.

 

Members were informed that in line with City's guidelines, an optioneering study had been undertaken. It assessed the options of retention, the extension requirements for ventilation and cooling equipment in order to bring high number of visitors to the tunnels as well as the need to meet the fire safety requirements for the site. The conclusion was the new build option.

 

The Officer stated that at ground level, the building line was set back in alignment with the neighbouring building to activate the principal site entrance facing north towards Holborn. Members were shown how the building layouts had been combined to provide sufficient space for the main entrance of the proposed cultural use with the necessary facilities provided at ground level.

 

Members were shown a diagram of the visitor entrance sequence. The arrival experience had evolved to consider the need to ensure security alongside the constant flow of people to ensure there was no queueing on the street. Members were shown the arrival route down into the tunnels and the exit route by the gift shop as well as the fire escape routes. Toilets were provided across the site and a changing place toilet was provisioned within Camden.

 

Members were shown a CGI of the main entrance which visualised the presence of the site on the street.

 

Three basement levels would be provided with ancillary space for the operation of the site e.g. refuse storage areas. A gift shop would be provided at first floor level with a mezzanine level right above. These areas would be accessible to all visitors at the end of their experience.

 

The third floor would be the plant room and would only be accessible by staff. The fourth level would be staff accommodation, provide end of trip facilities and a roof terrace for the use of staff only. Conditions had been secured for the hours of operation of the roof terrace. Green roofs would also be provided.

 

The Sub-Committee was shown the main elevation of the site. The proposed massing and height of the new structures would largely recreate the existing building proportions, whilst maintaining the urban grain of the east side of Furnival Street.

 

The brick façade of 38-39 Furnival Street would be reinstated and would include the existing concrete ventilation panel. The original metal work, which had been lost, would be replicated and reinstated on the building with a methodology conditioned. The proposed buildings would be recessed.

 

Members were shown a map showing the residential premises to the west and south of the site.

 

Members were informed that loading would occur on Holborn between 8pm and 10pm. This location had changed over the course of the application and had been moved away from residential properties. Conditions had been recommended to restrict the hours of servicing.

 

Improvements to the public realm would be secured under the legal agreement. The plan showed the maximum extent of the Section 278 works, which aligned with the Healthy Streets Plan for this location and this was subject to further consultation.

 

A daylight sunlight assessment had been undertaken as part of this application. Overall, the impact on neighbouring properties was considered to be acceptable due to the high level of BRE guideline compliance.

 

Members were informed that in relation to vertical movements, there would be double decker, twin lifts, with maximum capacity of 60 people. These would provide access to the tunnels and the gift shop at the upper levels. In the case of an emergency evacuation, firefighting lifts and evacuation stairs would be available at both ends, with fire protected lobbies at the entry points and the secondary entrance in Camden would act as an emergency escape. This arrangement had been reviewed by building control and considered to be acceptable in compliance with the relevant policies. Accessible evacuation routes had been designed at both exit points in the City and in Camden.

 

In terms of sustainability, the proposed development employed a highly efficient and full electric HVAC system, heat pumps, cooling towers and water-cooled chillers with heat recovery, which helped reduce carbon emissions. Greening would be provided wherever possible at roof levels. The application secured a carbon offset contribution alongside an obligation to explore possible options for beneficial rejection of waste heat.

 

Members were informed that it was proposed to provide a cultural exhibition space in the majority of the tunnels. This area would be accessed from the proposed buildings in Furnival Street, and fell within both local authorities, with the majority being within the City. Members were shown images of the space and the pre-existing bar known to be the deepest bar in London would be recreated at the very west side of the tunnels. The entirety of the bar floor space fell within Camden. Access and exit to the bar would be from Camden only. Members were informed that 71% of the total proposed area would sit within the City.

 

In terms of capacity, the exhibition areas had been designed to accommodate up to 750 people per hour, and the capacity for the bar would be 160. These figures were capped to ensure the site was safe.

 

The cultural use visitors would enter and exit from the City, whilst programmed school visits would enter and exit from Camden to allow for separate, safer and more efficient school tours. Members were advised that school visits would occur at least twice a week.

 

Members were shown images of the cultural exhibition space area which would be divided into areas of permanent and temporary nature. The permanent exhibition space would take place in the streets and Members were shown a diagram showing the circulation route. This area would make references to the historic timeline of the tunnels. A dedicated medium term exhibition would revolve around the character of James Bond deriving from the author's references to the tunnels in his books. It was intended to incorporate key elements of the heritage infrastructure within the exhibition space and Members were shown images of the equipment. It was intended that historic narratives would be brought to life through immersive use of large-scale audio-visual and digital interactivities to make the experience unique and stimulate interest.

 

In the three avenues it was proposed to create a temporary cultural exhibition space. Members were shown CGI images of the proposed immersive space for cultural exhibitions around art, science and nature. Opportunities for co-creation on the content of this area would be provided through partnership programmes. Up to 12 special events were expected to take place in the avenues over the year. Members were shown images of examples of these. Members were informed that Officers had secured by obligation, a public access and events management plan. The head of exhibition space would curate the history of the site in a most interesting and interactive way.

 

The Officer stated that the development would secure free school visits and discounted entrance tickets to certain groups of people and create opportunities to engage with local communities on the cultural content.

 

Inclusive procurement exploration for waste heat transfer Section 278 works and improvements to the public cycle infrastructure were also secured by this development.

 

In conclusion, the Officer stated that the proposal would include the provision for permanent and temporary cultural exhibition spaces to bring a new dynamic to the City and facilitate a 7-day and evening City, increasing footfall in this area and helping to revitalise the local economy. The proposal would assist in achieving the City's aspirations for Destination City that focused on enhancing the leisure and culture offer and cultural enrichment in the square mile and to increase its appeal to different audiences. Officers therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions and obligations as stated in the report.

 

The Clerk stated that there were no speakers registered to object to the application.

The Chairman then invited the applicant to speak.

 

Mr Angus Murray stated he was the CEO and major shareholder of this project which was conceived four years ago. His background was in finance around Macquarie Bank in the United States, as a regulated fund manager.

 

Mr Murray informed Members the tunnels could be seen in the model in the committee room. He stated that the four avenues were each about 78-80 metres long. The majority of the project already existed, and was built by the British to defend Europe during the Second World War but it was not used for that purpose. There were seven other tunnels which were not as large. The project was the restoration of an existing asset and saving the asset was part of the inspiration four years ago. The project would bring the story alive which would add to London, and also the City of London.

 

Mr Murray stated the project fitted in with the City Plan and the Destination City programme. He stated the tunnels would tell the story of the London Blitz and the 43,000 British people, who died during that period of time. He added it also then had the Special Operations Executive and there would need to be a partnership with an official museum to bring that content alive and tell the story of the 13,000 people, 3000 women who fought through that time.

 

Mr Murray stated that Ian Fleming had been inspired to describe the tunnel as Q branch in James Bond. He commented that the tunnels were used as the reserve war room to the cabinet war rooms and then as a telecommunications exchange after the war. After the war, they were expanded to the current size. There were enough construction shafts from the surface to the tunnels to ensure people could access and leave the site safely which was critical.

 

Mr Murray stated the tunnels would potentially add up to two million people into the City of London and Camden each year. It had been calculated that there were 60 to 80 million people annually into the Fleet Street retail area and also into Cheapside depending on the pathway that people walked. Three tunnels, 80 metres long each, would create a cultural experience within, that should have the backing of British artists.

 

The global media showed the tunnels would attract people and be a benefit to London as a whole and the City of London. Media coverage included CNN TV and the New York Times.

 

Mr Murray stated he was aware of the need to respect neighbours and minimise noise. He was also aware that this site was 30 metres below the ground, so it had a different set of safety measures. He added that the City had lots of tunnels, subways and tube stations so there were lots of qualified people to make the tunnels as safe as possible.

 

Mr Murray stated that the story being told was in part about military history. It had to be accessible for people of all ages and all abilities.

 

The Chairman asked Members if they had any questions of the applicants.

 

A Member asked how people would be evacuated if there was a power cut. Mr Michael Trousdell, WSP stated the building services had been designed to have two independent power supplies to provide a level of resilience into the scheme. In addition, there was the provision for generator backup for just for life safety systems, so that the steer pressurisation system, emergency lighting and equipment required to evacuate safely could be maintained in the very rare event of both power supplies failing.

 

A Member asked how the figure of two million visitors per year had been calculated. The applicant stated that this number was based upon the available square meterage inside the tunnel system. The number of people that could be accommodated on an hourly basis, was between 550 and 750 as a peak. That would not be all the time but gave an indication of a realistic number relative to the number of people per square.

 

In response to a Member’s question about visits of school children, the applicant responded that the proposal was to allow school children to visit for free and they would attend in groups of up to 40 children. If the applicants were able to, in time, the number of children could be increased.

 

In response to a question about the management of people entering and leaving the tunnels to prevent noise nuisance, especially noise aggregation in the street and congestion, the applicant stated that after clearing security, the aim was to move people into the system as quickly as possible, and in the lifts down to the tunnels. Afterwards people would leave into what was a busy area. The hours of operation were 9am-7pm so there should not be noise outside of these hours. The applicant stated that people would buy tickets online and would arrive in a certain block of time. Visitors would be brought inside as quickly as possible to give them the greatest amount of comfort. There would also be toilets inside.

 

In response to a Member’s question as to whether there would be ambassadors in the street helping people disperse after their visit, the applicant stated that there would be staff helping visitors with their onward journeys.

 

A Member asked about the lift capacity and how long the security process would take as they were concerned about bottlenecks. Mr Robbie Arnold from WSP Transport stated that to gain access to the tunnels, there was a lift system, The lifts would accommodate 60 people so there would be staggered ticket times. On arrival visitors would enter the venue, go through security checks and into a lift. The lifts would take about five minutes to take people down and return. Using the staggered booking system, 750 people could be on site in an hour.

 

Visitors would visit the exhibitions in the tunnels and then exit through the gift shop. Overall, there could be 750 people on site. A dynamic legion model which was a pedestrian model, had tested 1,500 people per hour coming in and out, so 750 in and 750 people out and that demonstrated there would be no queues on the highway. Even a 20% uplift to 1800 people, demonstrated there would not be any queuing on the highway but that figure started to cause some internal queuing. Two million people per year was the maximum capacity. It was recognised that the busiest days would be weekends and bank holidays and during weekdays there might be slightly reduced numbers on site. To inform the assessment within the transport assessment, a dynamic legion model of Chancery Lane Station had been undertaken to look at the capacity of the gate lines, stairwells and the corridors in the station. This was undertaken for the 2023 date of the assessment and was informed by TfL data from 2023. It was also undertaken for 2041 and the uplift was taken into account. The same assessment was undertaken for pedestrian comfort level, which looked at the footways in the crossings of the local area to see what the uplift and the impact of all the assessments would be. It concluded that there would not be a significant impact. This was repeated with a 100% uplift to four million per year and the impacts on the local area were not shown to be significant. The detail was contained within the transport assessment and had been agreed with TfL and Officers.

 

A Member asked about the cultural offer including the immersive experience and partnerships with cultural providers. Mr Murray stated that there would be the story of the London Blitz with images of the history of London. This would be a digital, interactive experience. There would then be a section which would be a memorial to the people who perished during the London Blitz, 23,000 civilians in London itself, and 43,000 people in Britain who died during that period of time. There would then be the Special Operations Executive section and there would be a partnership with an official military museum, and the interactivity with physical real objects. Mr Murray stated that the James Bond theme had been written about in the media and the story could be brought alive. He further stated that the telecommunications equipment in the tunnels would be reactivated, not in terms of communication but to show the lights. Mr Murray stated that projectors and mirrors would be used in the immersive experience and he used Atelier des Lumieres, Digital and Immersive Art Centre in Paris, Team Lab in Tokyo and Moco Museum in Amsterdam as examples of the type of cultural space that would be created.

 

The Chairman suggested that the Sub-Committee now move to any questions that they might have of Officers at this stage.

 

A Member asked a question in relation to fire safety. She asked for reassurance that the Fire Brigade’s recommendation that a Qualitative Design Review process take place, would be undertaken. An Officer stated that there were several fire safety measures secured for the site e.g. people to be safety on the street within the required timeline. The London Fire Brigade had some concerns around several matters. The qualitative design review process was to be undertaken with the London Fire Brigade. It was expected that they would be consulted as a key stakeholder and this process would be undertaken post-planning and fell within the remit of Building Regulations. Members were advised that Officers had responded to the London Fire Brigade concerns and one of those concerns related to the firefighter access and the means of escape. Officers had recommended an access management plan to be secured by obligation and the emergency evacuation strategy and procedures would be requested to be reviewed by Officers. The developers would be required to go through the normal legal process of building control.

 

A Member asked what would happen if the City of London approved the planning application but it was not approved by Camden Council. The Chairman stated that the approved planning application would then fall. An Officer stated that Paragraph 3 of the recommendation explained that if a Section 106 agreement could not be entered into, which would be the case if Camden did not grant the planning permission, Officers would be instructed to refuse permission.

 

A Member asked for clarification on the servicing arrangements. An Officer stated that the expected number of deliveries on a daily basis would be about eight and these would be on Holborn as Furnival Street was smaller and not suitable. Refuse would be collected from Furnival Street. Deliveries would take place out of hours.

 

A Member asked if scenario planning had taken place for a flood caused by a Thames Water failure. An Officer stated that a flooding evacuation plan was submitted as part of the application and had been reviewed by building control and climate resilience Officers. The management plan requested details of the evacuation procedures. The Officer stated that the site was located in Flood Zone One which had a very low risk of flooding and added that the water table ran beneath the tunnels. A flood evacuation strategy had been secured that would be further reviewed by building control. The Officer added the Local Flood Authority had raised no objections to the subject of the conditions that were attached to the recommendation and Thames Water had also made their comments, not objecting to the application subject to a groundwater risk permit being provided.

 

A Member asked if taxis would be restricted on Furnival Street and how this would work. An Officer stated that work had taken place with the applicant on this. One option to mitigate the impact of the proposal was to look at restricting vehicle access along Furnival Street, which would prevent taxis from pulling up on Furnival Street. The Officer stated that there would be a significant Section 278 contribution to look at improving the road to ensure the additional footways to accommodate pedestrians and look at preventing taxis from using Furnival Street whilst maintaining access for the existing premises. Refuge collection would be from there and there was a crossover opposite the site as well for a main delivery. There would be a further consultation with local businesses, residents and key stakeholders and a design phase and the fundamentals of mitigating the impact had been agreed with the applicant.

 

A Member raised concern for the occupiers along Furnival Street in relation to the impact on the servicing, the vehicles and the noise and the queuing outside. She also asked, if there was a problem which meant a delay getting inside the building or if there was an evacuation, where people would be contained. An Officer stated that an operational management plan had been secured and this would include how people were dispersed. Work had taken place to ensure that the evacuation from the tunnels was sufficient in terms of fire and flooding and where the people would go next would be part of the operational management plan which was also secured in the legal agreement.

 

A Member stated that people should be attracted to come to the exhibitions using public transport because there was less of an impact on the transport network and the streets but the nearest station was Chancery Lane and whilst there were escalators to get down to the platform, there was a flight of stairs to get out of the station. She stated that this was not accessible given the level of visitors the attraction hoped to bring into the area and stated that the developer should be required to help fund step-free access at Chancery Lane Station. An Officer stated that an assessment was undertaken with the applicant to look at the flow of pedestrians through the site and into and out of the site and also through Chancery Lane Station to ensure there was capacity there. There was a discussion with TfL to see if they were in agreement and step-free access was discussed. The Officer stated this was not something they wished to pursue as part of this application.

 

A Member stated that she considered the number of free school places for children to be insufficient and asked whether more could be conditioned in order to increase the public benefit. An Officer stated that there would be two school trips per week with a maximum capacity of 40 children each so there would be 80 free school places per week. There was a cultural implementation strategy secured by obligation, which would explore the educational programmes and the applicant had committed to a minimum of two school trips per week. An Officer confirmed that Officers considered the minimum of two school trips per week was proportionate to the proposal. There was no identified heritage harm and therefore this was not a public benefit to outweigh that harm. This was a public offer that had been negotiated with the applicant. The applicant had indicated that on the appointment of the cultural operator, which would be confirmed through the cultural management plan, it would be intended to expand on the number of school trips and this would be through negotiation with Officers at that time.

 

A Member stated that the monument to commemorate people who lost their lives in the Second World War, outside St Paul’s had disappeared from view. He asked if this could be incorporated into the scheme. Officers stated they could look into this.

 

Seeing no further questions, the Chairman asked that Members now move to debate the application.

 

A Member commented that she considered that with over 5,000 visitors per week, there could be more than two free school trips per week.

 

MOTION - A motion was put and seconded that the number of school visits be increased to one school trip per day each week.

 

The Chairman stated he would not support the motion as the Sub-Committee did not have the plans on the details of the safety requirements of schoolchildren or the safeguarding provisions made underground. He stated there had been negotiations between the applicant and Officers on reaching the proposed number.

 

A Member commented that the number of visits seemed small and one trip could be required as a minimum per day. 

 

A Member raised concern about setting a precedent with a motion which had financial implications for the applicant and stated this was not a function of the Sub-Committee. A Member commented that the Sub-Committee had previously increased the number of school visits for a number of attractions to increase the public benefit e.g. the Tulip and the Sky Garden.

 

A Member suggested that motions should be case specific and stated that if the financial implications of increasing the number of school trips to five per week would result in the failure of the business, the business was not going to succeed.

 

A Member stated that the Sub-Committee should not be setting requirements on how the business should be run.

 

A Member stated that the Sky Garden was not the commercial part of the building. The commercial part of the building was leasing office floors so this was different. This would have a direct position on the profit and loss of the business which was not the case for the Sky Garden.

 

The Planning and Development Director stated that both the Sky Garden and the Tulip were policy, non-compliant and caused heritage harm. Therefore, the paragraph of the NPPF was activated in which public benefits were needed to outweigh the harm. In this instance, the application was policy compliant, with or without school groups.

 

A Member stated that Officers had previously negotiated more access to rooftop terraces and gardens and with the Tulip, the applicant was encouraged to increase the number of school visits per week. As part of Destination City, children should be encouraged to visit the City. The whole exhibition was about education, especially in relation to the Second World War and the only way to educate was to ensure that there were free spaces for children. She stated that she had concerns that not all of the issues above ground had been mitigated and therefore the free child spaces would be a public benefit.

 

A Member asked if the Sub-Committee could ask the applicant to agree to one free school trip of 40 children per day. The Chairman stated this was not protocol and the applicant would not be asked to enter into a negotiation during the meeting as this would not be fair.

 

Having debated the motion, the Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the motion that the number of school visits be increased to one school trip per day each week.

 

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 6 votes

                                            OPPOSED – 7 votes

                                            There was 1 abstention.

 

Following the vote, a Member queried the votes cast. To clarify, the Chairman asked for votes to be cast again.

 

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 7 votes

                                            OPPOSED – 7 votes

                                            There was 1 abstention.

 

The Chairman using his casting vote, voted against the motion and it therefore fell.

 

[Deputy Michael Cassidy, Anthony Fitzpatrick, Jaspreet Hodgson, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Henry Pollard and Shailendra Umradia, who had not been present for the item, did not vote.]

 

Having fully debated the application, the Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendation before them.

 

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 15 votes

                                            OPPOSED – None

                                            There were no abstentions.

 

The recommendations were therefore carried unanimously.

 

[Deputy Michael Cassidy, Anthony Fitzpatrick, Jaspreet Hodgson, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Henry Pollard and Shailendra Umradia, who had not been present for the item, did not vote.]

 

RESOLVED -

1.        That, subject to the execution of a planning obligation or obligations in respect of the matters set out under the heading ‘Planning Obligations’ the Planning and Development Director be authorised to issue a decision notice granting planning permission for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule;

 

2.        That your officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in "Planning Obligations" under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any necessary agreements under Sections 278 and 38 of the Highway Act 1980 in respect of those matters set out in the report;

 

Or;

 

3.        In the event that a legal agreement satisfactorily securing cross boundary obligations is not completed within 12 months of the date of the resolution officers be instructed to REFUSE permission for the substantive reason that the scheme fails to mitigate the adverse impacts noted within the officer report and is therefore contrary to the policies contained within the Development Plan.