Agenda item

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Planning and Development Director concerning the demolition of existing buildings to basement level and construction of a nine storey plus basement level building for hotel use (Class C1) with retail (Class E(a) / E(b)) use at part ground and basement levels together with ancillary cycle parking, associated servicing, plant, amenity terraces, landscaping and other associated works.

 

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, highlighting the location of the site to the north of Long Lane, west of Aldersgate Street and the Barbican Estate, east of Smithfield Market and south of London Underground rail lines. An Officer stated that although it was not located within a conservation area, the Barbican Conservation Area was to the east, the Charterhouse Conservation Area to the north, and the Smithfield Conservation Area to the southwest.

 

Members were informed that the site comprised two office buildings, 1-5 and 6-8 Long Lane. They were 6 and 5 storeys in height respectively, and they dated from the 1960s and 1970s. Members were shown photographs of the buildings from Long Lane and Aldersgate Street, and a view from Long Lane looking towards the east.

They were also shown the front elevations of the two buildings and the open space on the eastern part of the site which had a hard surface and lacked seating and greening.

 

Members were shown a photograph taken from the Barbican podium, which showed the small cluster of commercial buildings to the north of Long Lane. Members were also shown a photograph of the view from the north elevation of the buildings alongside adjacent buildings with the Barbican towers to the back.

 

The Officer stated that the proposed development comprised the demolition of the existing office buildings at 128 Long Lane at basement level, the extension of the basement and construction of a 9-storey building for hotel use with retail use at part ground and basement levels, together with the provision of cycle parking, associated servicing, green terraces and a pocket garden to the east of the application. Members were informed that the site availability assessment and marketing information had been submitted with the application and had been reviewed by a third party. This demonstrated that all three options assessed - light refurbishment, full refurbishment and a new build, would be unviable for office use. The Officer stated that all the figures stated in paragraph 74 of the report, should be negative figures.

 

Members were shown the ground floor plan with the main entrance to the hotel as well as the entrances to the retail units and the access point to the servicing yard. The Officer stated that the development would generate five vehicle trips a day which was seven less than the existing. She added that the size of the servicing yard was large enough to allow access and egress of the site in forward gear. Ten long stay and six short stay policy compliance cycle parking spaces were also proposed.

 

The Officer stated that the development would also include the provision of an open space to the east of the buildings which would provide seating, greening, landscaping and new surface materials, and would animate the public realm.

 

Members were shown a visual of the proposed development which showed other public realm improvements, including the removal of the existing crossover in front of 1-8 Long Lane and the reinstatement of the footway extension to the loading and unloading restrictions and cycle lane segregation along Long Lane.

 

Members were informed that the site, by reason of its location, design and position of the pocket park had a great potential for the display of high-quality public art. Members were shown examples of the public art that were proposed by the applicant e.g. a 2D glass panel or metal sculpture. The Officer stated that artistic metal work was also proposed to be installed on the entrance gate of the servicing yard.

 

The Officer showed some indicative floorplans of the ground floor, basement, first to eighth floor and the roof plan with the plant enclosures. Members were also shown cross sections of the south, north, east and west elevations and the existing and proposed street elevation. The overall height of the proposed building would be comparable to what was previously approved.

 

The Officer stated that in the view of the proposed building from Long Lane towards the northwest, the massing and height of the building would successfully mediate the changes in scale with its local context, and it would significantly enhance the wider street block. The high architectural design materials detailing and varied tones of colour and curved forms would introduce a well-considered refined development of higher architectural merit. At ground floor, active frontages would be provided along the south elevation of the proposal which would run around the east of the building.

 

The Officer stated that although the proposal had the highest whole life carbon emissions, the redevelopment option would have more efficient floor to floor heights, optimised structural grade and improved core layout, which would provide greater spatial and operational efficiency. It would provide a significant uplift in greening and biodiversity, support active travel and greater climate resilience, including by reduced risk of overheating and flood risk. The development would be fully electric with air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels and it would achieve a BREAMM rating of excellent.

 

The Officer stated that an extensive daylight and sunlight assessment was carried out and was outlined in the report and updated in the addendum. Members were shown an image of the properties that would be mainly affected. These were 41 to 43 Charterhouse Square. The impact on these windows was greater due to the existing fire escapes and staircases and the depth of the rooms. Taking into account these factors, it was conceded that the retained level of light was commensurate to those experienced in the dense urban environment.

 

Members were shown townscape views which illustrated that the development would sit comfortably within the massing and mix of architectural style of the buildings in the vicinity. Members were shown the existing and proposed view from Hayne Street. They were also shown the existing and proposed view from Long Lane. Members were informed the building would be comparable to the height of the Kaleidoscope building. Members were shown proposed and existing views from Cloth Street from the corner with Aldersgate, from the Barbican podium and Charterhouse Square. The Officer stated that from here, the building would be highly obscured by the existing buildings and the trees. Members were also shown the proposed and existing view from the northeast corner. The Officer stated that overall, it was considered that the proposal would preserve the significance of the heritage assets and it would enhance the setting of Smithfield Conservation Area.

 

To conclude, the Officer stated that it was considered the proposed hotel would contribute to the balance in a mix of uses in the area without compromising the primary business function of the City. The proposal would successfully mediate the changes in scale and its local townscape and architecturally would provide a high-quality hotel development. Together with the proposed retail uses, the hotel would provide an active frontage in an area which currently lacked animation and provide improved public realm and urban greening contributing to the Destination City objectives.

 

The Officer stated the proposal would assist in rejuvenating the north of the City enhancing the distinctive and mixed character of Smithfield area. The site was located between the future Museum of London and the Barbican, and it was therefore considered to be a nodal point to assist in providing visitor accommodation and also a meaningful cultural offer. Members were informed that the development would be acceptable in principle in terms of its transport, residential amenity, sustainability, townscape design and environmental impacts, and it would provide public benefits for those reasons. Officers recommended approval of the application.

 

The Town Clerk stated that there were two speakers registered to object to the application. Mr Peter Golob who was registered to speak, stated that it had been agreed that he would also speak for the other objector, Mr Richard Vitola-Jones. Mr Vitola-Jones confirmed this. The Chairman invited Mr Golob to speak.

 

Mr Golob stated that he was representing Charterhouse Square, Hayne Street and the Barbican Association objectors to the development. In relation to daylight and sunlight, Mr Golob stated that deprivation was the main issue. He raised concern about errors in the data. He stated that the developers had not been aware that the southside of Charterhouse was a school until objectors had informed them. Mr Golob stated that the remit of the independent assessment was restricted and assumed the technical calculations were accurate. He stated that in terms of local context, the modelling of cumulative impact had been accepted by the Planning Officers. He stated that the description of balconies in the BRE guidelines differed substantially from that of the existing balconies, which were actually fire escapes and stated that in relation to the daylight and sunlight survey, the modelling of cumulative impact was inaccurate. Mr Golob stated this was not a solid overhanging structure, as dealt with in the BRE guidelines, but were the supports for a fire escape. He therefore questioned whether the calculations were accurate and stated that there had been no corroboration with residents which could have led to mistaken conclusions in the report. He stated that the applicants, in their submission noted that they had had access to many of the affected properties. Mr Golob proposed that a new, fully independent report be commissioned to look into the effect of daylight and sunlight deprivation from the perspective of the residents and the affected buildings, and that residents would cooperate. The base data could then be looked at and it could be seen if adjustments had been made according to BRE guidelines. Mr Golob stated the calculations would then either be corroborated or if there were errors in the base data or base calculations, the problem would be solved and the Sub-Committee would have fulfilled its duty to scrutinise the plans.

 

Mr Golob questioned whether the overhanging balconies caused the loss of daylight and sunlight or whether it was the superimposed effect of the new development causing daylight and sunlight deprivation. He stated it was unclear as the base data had not been examined.

 

Mr Golob stated the objectors disagreed with the report which stated that the proposed scheme was similar to the consented scheme in terms of height, mass and cumulative impact. He showed slides outlining the impact of increased massing and stated that from Charterhouse Square, the real impact could be seen when there were no leaves on the trees. He stated that increasing the height and mass to the upper levels, decreased the amount of daylight and sunlight and stated that this should be investigated further. He stated that the significant conditions attached to the consented scheme had reassured residents.

 

Members were informed that in 2021, Officers referred to local plan policies DM15.7  and DM 21.3 to restrict the use of terraces stating that there should be no use of terraces between 9pm and 8am on weekdays, and no use on weekends or bank holidays. He commented that the Officer report stated it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to impose any condition on some of the terraces. Mr Golob raised concern that there had been a move from being protecting against overlooking and noise to having no conditions on these.

 

Mr Golob raised concern about traffic and construction. He stated that Long Lane was a narrow street and there was a cycle path in front of the hotel. He stated that Officers had agreed there were no dropping off points and therefore had proposed that unidentified nearby locations should be used. He suggested there could be abuse of the policy and this was unworkable.

 

Mr Golob requested conditions controlling pollution and noise during construction to safeguard the well-being of the neighbouring residents and the Charterhouse School. He stated that many residents had made representations to the Barbican Association concerning 150 Aldersgate and work on Saturdays and stated that noise levels had exceeded those permitted in the views of many of those residents. Mr Golob requested a condition that there should be no work on weekends, including Saturdays.

 

The Chairman asked if Members of the Sub-Committee had any questions of the objectors.

 

A Member asked if Mr Golob had objected to the last consented scheme. The objector stated he did not object as he was not a resident of the City of London at the time and therefore was not consulted.

 

A Member asked about consultation by the applicants with the local community and neighbouring properties. Mr Golob stated that there was usually low participation in consultations but 17 residents of the south side of Charterhouse Square participated as well as a resident from Hayne Street whose property was affected by the proposal.

 

The Chairman invited the applicant to speak.

 

Mr Adam Jones from EPR Architects stated that he was representing the applicant and client, McTaggart Family and Partners and was speaking in support of this application. He stated this was an exciting opportunity to develop a new hotel on the site of 1-8 Long Lane in Farringdon, bringing a new use to the site that would support the objectives of local businesses and initiatives such as Destination City and provide much needed hotel space.

 

Members were informed that the proposal would increase public realm in an area that was experiencing increased demand. The brand was called The Resident and as the name suggested, was a hotel centred around the guest enabling them to use it as a base from which to explore the location around them. He added the hotel would be a home from home.

 

Mr Jones stated the site was incredibly well located next to existing transport links, including the Barbican Underground and Farrington Elizabeth Line stations, and was within a short distance of several key cultural institutions, which made it the ideal location for this type of hotel. Members were informed that the two existing buildings on the site, built in the 1960s and 1970s, were of very poor quality, they failed to meet modern EPC requirements and were not able to provide the type of modern office space required for their long-term success. Mr Jones stated that the objective of the design team, was to create a highly sustainable hotel building with carbon efficiency and the principles of responsible environmental design. At its heart, all design decisions had been made with these principles in mind. Sustainable drainage solutions had been proposed, opportunities had been explored to recycle elements of the existing buildings and the proposal had been designed with adaptability in mind. A whole life carbon assessment had been undertaken, as well as studies to review opportunities to retain the existing structures which had been third-party reviewed in line with the City of London Corporation's guidance.

 

The Sub-Committee was informed that the proposed scheme comprised 128 guest rooms over nine storeys, with separate retail on the ground floor, which would activate the street frontage onto Long Lane with opening windows and awnings.

Mr Jones stated that to the eastern end of the site a new pocket garden was proposed which would transform a currently unattractive paved area into one that was rich with planting beds and trees, offering a space for everyone to enjoy and providing significantly improved biodiversity. Mr Jones added that the building had been carefully designed based on analysis of the local built context and architectural vernacular and developed in dialogue with design Officers to create a building which was highly contextual and born from a collaborative approach.

 

Members were informed the facade design minimised solar gain, maximised thermal performance and had been designed with disassembly in mind. The proposals had considered an appropriate height that could not only accommodate the hotel but also took into consideration neighbours and the 2021 consented scheme. At the stepped back upper levels, the proposed footprint had extended beyond this massing to provide adequate space for the guest rooms and vertical circulation arrangements to comply with London Plan requirements.

 

The Sub-Committee was shown images of proposals for cultural offerings and public art opportunities within the site and on the building. These proposals would be developed with local artists and stakeholders.

 

In summary, Mr Jones stated that the scheme proposed a new, sustainable, high-quality hotel with active ground floor uses in an appropriate location on an otherwise underutilised site. The scheme would support and provide new cultural initiatives, improve biodiversity, provide aesthetic improvements to Long Lane and the conservation area, and create a new beautiful public garden for all to enjoy.

As such, and for the reasons set out in the committee report, the applicants endorsed the recommendation that planning permission be granted.

 

The Chairman asked Members if they had any questions of the applicants. He asked the applicant to explain more about the carbon optioneering and why retrofit was not suitable for the site. Mr Jones stated there were two existing buildings on the site. Opportunities had been explored to try and retain some or all of the existing structures on the site. However, the buildings were coming to the end of their natural lives. Consideration was given to adapting the structures to utilise them as part of the hotel. The option to retain both buildings was ruled out for the primary reason that the two buildings, because they were built at different times, had different floor levels. Making the building work holistically as one operation would be incredibly difficult and would probably have resulted in compromised accessibility for disabled users. Then, the opportunity to just retain one of the buildings was considered.

However the floor to floor heights were very low and not suitable for adaptation into a hotel considering all of the structural reinforcement that would need to be done to the existing structures to make them fit for a 21st century hotel operation. The conclusion was that the difference between the carbon figures was minor between the partial retention option, and the retention of as much of the basement substructure as possible, as there was a significant amount of embodied carbon in that element of the of the existing buildings. As a result, when the holistic benefits that the new super structure would bring in terms of flexibility and adaptability and the future of being able to comply with new current building regulations, particularly around accessibility and energy use were considered, it became clear to the applicant that the new superstructure proposal was the right one.

 

The Chairman asked what consultation had taken place with local stakeholders and asked the applicant to address some of the light impact concerns raised by the objector. Mr Jones stated that two public consultations were held in the autumn of last year, which were well attended, and overall the majority of responders supported hotel use. Mr Jones stated that in addition, he and members of the design team and the client team met with various local stakeholders and local interest groups as part of that consultation.

 

Mr Andrew Cartmell the daylight sunlight consultant from Point 2, stated that with regards to the school, in the original report, not all of the windows were assessed as it was not known that they were technically connected with the school. Once made aware that there were further windows connected with the school, they were assessed. Mr Cartmell stated there was not a need to assess them because those windows served circulation space at the school, but were assessed in any case.  They all continued to meet the BRE guidance because they were off to the side of the proposed development, so there was no further impact there.

 

In terms of whether something was a balcony or a fire escape, Mr Cartmell stated this was to some extent irrelevant when looking at the principles set out in the BRE guidance.  They both blocked natural daylight and they had therefore been assessed and considered in the calculations. In the second set of assessments, they had been taken off as that was the principle following the BRE guidance. The original application was reviewed by the BRE guidance and they agreed with the methodology used. The current application’s report had been reviewed by another independent daylight and sunlight surveyor, who had not raised concerns over the methodology used when assessing the impact of the fire escapes.

 

Mr Cartmell stated that one of the photographs showed the fire escapes were grills with small perforations. He added that in the modelling, they had been assessed as solid which overestimated the percentage reduction and understated the retained levels of daylight. Effectively the worst case scenario was presented.

 

In response to the objector’s concern that the base data could be inaccurate, Mr Cartmell stated that the computer 3D modelling that had been produced and from which the calculations were based, was produced with accurate survey information using a 3D laser scanner which picked up the position of the buildings and the windows to within one or two millimetres.

 

In response to a Member’s question about the terraces and who would have access to them, Mr Cartmell stated that the proposed built form stepped back at Levels 7 and 8. From street level on Long Lane, Levels 7 and 8 would not be seen. The building being stepped back allowed opportunities to create guest terraces which would have a significant amount of greening which helped improve biodiversity and meet the urban greening factors set by the City. The terraces would be available for use by guests only. It was in the hotel's operational interest to be a quiet neighbour so the terraces were designed for quiet private use by those in guest rooms.

 

A Member asked the applicant to outline the meaningful engagement which would take place in relation to the cultural offer. Mr Jones stated that The Resident Hotel was designed to be a base from which guests could explore the City. It did not have its own destination, restaurant or bar in that sense and was about partnering with local stakeholders and community initiatives so that the guests could explore them.  It would be within the operator’s remit to engage with as many of those stakeholders as possible and to get information across to guests about places they could visit in the vicinity and there would be an ongoing process of engagement through the life of the hotel.

 

A Member asked if, whether in relation to whole life carbon, the assessment and discounting of the refurbishment and retention options took place before or after office use was discounted. Mr Jones stated that an office viability assessment was carried out on the existing buildings as well as for the massing of the proposed development. The optioneering was for hotel use only.

 

A Member asked for clarification on numbers of people expected to arrive by different modes of transport. Mr Daniel Birkin, from Caneparo, the applicant’s transport consultant, stated the anticipated modes of travel were based on that of other similar hotels. It was anticipated that the majority of all activity would be arriving by public transport, a small amount by active travel and a similarly small amount by taxis arriving which showed an active and sustainable travel focus to arrive at the hotel. There was no on-site parking for any guests or visitors or staff, and the expectation would be that unless there was the arrival of a disabled person, there would be no private car activity at the hotel. 

 

In response to a Member’s question as to how the valet parking would work for blue badge holders, the Member was informed that the applicant was willing to purchase a private car parking opportunity locally and the intention would be that any disabled guest arriving by car would arrive and would make use one of several on-street disabled bays with the hotel providing a valet offering where appropriate. He stated that there would be limitations e.g. if the car was adapted as staff would not be able to move it. Members were informed the closest disabled parking bay was on Cloth Street within 50m of the hotel.

 

A Member commented that rainwater harvesting was proposed and asked if there had been any consideration made for grey water. Ms Emma Jolly, energy consultant, stated that a large space provision was required within the rooms and en-suites. Rainwater harvesting would be undertaken as a minimum.

 

A Member asked if the scheme had been amended following consultation with the residents and if so, how. Mr Jones stated that two half day consultation events had taken place. Responses had been collated from the local community and local residents. Following consultation, the planned drop-off outside the front of the hotel was removed. There was also a change to the proposal to extend the cycle lane and reinforce it as a direct response to some of the feedback received.

 

The Member asked the applicant to outline the uplift to the scheme compared with the consented scheme and whether the applicant considered the public benefits balanced the uplift in terms of the size of the building compared with the existing building. Mr Jones stated that bringing the hotel to the site was a significant advantage in an area of the City with increasing demand for hotels. Providing 128 guest rooms within this massing gave a significant boost. The space for the retail unit was to be determined in the future so that it could be tailored to the requirements of the local community, i.e. whether it be a retail offering or food and beverage offering.

 

The Member also asked if guests could drink alcohol on the terraces. Mr Jones stated that the guests would have the opportunity to drink alcohol on the terraces but parties would not be taking place on terraces. They were just for private use by the guests of the hotel.

 

The Member commented that Barbican was the nearest station but was not step-free and asked the applicant if the scheme should be addressing this as a public benefit, given the uplift. Mr Birkin stated that in the transport assessment there was a full trip assessment study comparing the existing office buildings with the proposed hotel use and during peak hours there was a significant reduction in anticipated public transport trips. There would therefore be a reduction based on the peak flow on the network during those periods. Mr Birkin stated that the Elizabeth Line provided lift access down to the westbound platform at Barbican Station. He added that there were limitations on what could be achieved from the hotel site and a complete redevelopment of Barbican Station would be needed to provide lift access to each platform.

 

A Member asked if the unisex accessible toilet provided at ground floor in close proximity to the hotel reception was intended to be a publicly available toilet, and raised concern that the pocket garden would become a public urinal.

 

Mr Jones stated that the retail unit on the ground floor would have an accessible toilet as part of its provision and the retail unit would have access to the pocket garden. He stated that the toilet would be accessible to the public insofar as it would be accessible through the retail unit, but that would be managed and operated by the retail unit for people using that facility. Mr Jones stated that the secluded space at the back would be overlooked by the retail unit, which would discourage loitering. A Member raised concern that the retail unit would not be open late at night when the secluded space was more likely to be used as a public urinal. 

 

A Member stated that the toilet would be available to the general public at all times of the operation of the unit. He stated the importance of signage and stated that lighting, particularly in the evening and during the night, would act as a deterrent to some of the antisocial activities that might occur. The applicant stated that there was a landscape design and lighting scheme for the pocket garden.

 

A Member commented that microclimate had been considered in the report. He raised concern that there were times along Long Lane when the wind created an issue. He questioned whether increasing the height of the building could exacerbate this. Ms Angela Crowder, from the applicant’s sustainability and environmental team

stated that a detailed wind analysis had been undertaken, comparing the present condition to the proposed, making sure that there were not worsening effects. It had been demonstrated there would be no worsening and therefore no mitigation was required.

 

A Member asked about retrofit and whether the proposal was maximising return on investment rather than being concerned about climate change. He asked whether under retrofit, a boutique hotel could be provided on the site. Mr Jones stated that in order to create a more boutique experience for a hotel on this site, average daily room rates would need to be significantly higher than would be projected for a hotel in this area to make the scheme viable. The number of guest rooms per square metre was considered for viability and for the two retention options, it was evident that the necessary room rates would not be achieved.

 

The Member also stated that now, when rebuilding took place, the buildings were expected to last for centuries rather than decades. He asked if that was the plan, why the BREEAM rating of excellent rather than outstanding was being targeted. Ms Crowder stated that the proposed use as a hotel, which had certain needs in terms of functionality e.g. water use, made it very difficult to achieve a BREEAM outstanding rating. The excellent aspiration pushed the boundaries of hotel design and included requirements on minimising water use and balancing other aspects in terms of minimising operational energy use. Excellent was seen as an aspirational target to achieve.

 

A Member asked if the toilet in the lobby could be made accessible to be used by the public when the retail unit was closed. Mr Jones stated there would be two accessible toilets on the ground floor, one of which related to the hotel which would be accessed off the lobby and reception on the ground floor that would be for use by the guests and patrons of the hotel. As part of the fit-out of the development, particularly if it was a food and beverage use, the retail unit on the ground floor would then be required under the building regulations to have a fully accessible toilet. The management of that would be controlled by that operation. Barnaby Collins, DP9 stated that it was not the intention to have that public toilet available outside the operational hours of the retail unit, because independently operated public toilets tended to be abused and or not operating properly, particularly during the night. A Member commented that there was a urilift toilet close by which came up out of the ground at night and went back down in the early morning and there were plans to increase the number of those. A Member commented that they were only for men and whilst there was an option to have urilifts for women too, they were not accessible.

 

A Member queried the percentage figures for various modes of transport for guest arrival. The applicant stated that surveys throughout the day of an operating hotel had been used. The figures included people arriving at the start of their stay, and also the movements of those already staying at the hotel.

 

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

 

The Chairman asked Officers to explain the specific demand that had been modelled for hotel use in the area and more widely in the square mile. An Officer stated that last year a study by consultants had been commissioned to look at demand for hotel rooms in the square mile. That study showed a need for about 350 additional hotel bedrooms every year, over the next five years. This reflected the Destination City initiative. This area was identified as being potentially suitable for hotel accommodation. Although the new City Plan did not specify locations for hotel accommodation, the area was very well connected by public transport and there would be a substantial number of visitors coming to the area in terms of Smithfield, the new Museum of London and to existing attractions such as the Barbican so there was strong demand for hotels within the City and a need to provide spaces to meet that demand.

 

A Member asked if there would be specific guidance given as to locations where pick-ups and drop-offs could safely be carried out or whether it was assumed that drivers would locate them themselves on arrival. An Officer stated that drivers were expected to pick-up and drop-off where it was safe to do so.

 

A Member asked Officers to comment on the objector’s concern about the methodology used for the daylight and sunlight assessment. An Officer stated that the BRE allowed for assessors to consider alternative targets considering their urban environment in an area. The daylight and sunlight assessment was third-party reviewed and the reviewer did not raise an objection to the methodology used.

 

A Member asked if the hours of the terraces could be restricted. An Officer stated that the terraces were on the seventh and eighth floors and the rooftop was not accessible to the public. There would be two terraces in total that would be accessible by guests. The rest of the terraces were balconies to individual rooms. There was a condition for the terraces that were accessible to any guest, to be restricted in terms of hours of use between 9pm and 7am. The rest of the terraces were only accessible from individual rooms and were not dissimilar to any other residential balconies, so Officers did not consider that they would meet the tests for imposing a condition.

 

A Member asked if the pocket garden was included in the consented scheme.

An Officer stated that the previous scheme included the landscaping of that same area, but it was smaller and it was largely hard paving, with not much soft landscaping. The current proposal included some seating and there were further public benefits which included public art, to that eastern elevation and that would be secured within the Section 106 public art strategy. A further benefit would be providing offers for reduced rates for those within creative industry which would be secured within a culture plan as part of the Section 106.

 

In response to a Member’s question about signage so the public would know they could access the publicly accessible toilet in the retail unit without having to make a purchase, the Officer stated that there was a condition which required signs to be provided. To ensure this signage was visible, Officers would request the details so that these could be approved in writing by Officers.

 

In response to a question about the detail of the cycle lane demarcation and wands, an Officer stated that this would be developed as part of the Section 278 which would follow.

 

In response to a Member’s question about construction noise and disturbance to residents and whether work could be suspended at weekends, an Officer stated that Officer staffing levels had increased meaning the team could be more proactive and make more visits to try and ensure disruption was minimised. He added that construction methodologies had improved which helped to reduce disruption. He stated that the City was dense and there were many transport and logistic issues. There was a balance to reach in trying to complete the works with the disruption ending sooner or extending he works to reduce working hours.

 

At 12pm, the Chaiman stated the meeting would be paused for 20 minutes. The meeting resumed at 12.20pm.

 

A Member asked for clarification on the embodied carbon figures in the report.

The Officer stated the embodied carbon accounted for the replacement and maintenance cycles related to the building.

 

A Member commented on the statement that air quality was neutral and asked if there would be an air quality impact from construction. An Officer stated that the air quality neutral assessment related to operation and did not cover the air quality impacts of construction.

 

A Member asked for clarification on whether the number of employees included those working in the retail units. The Officer confirmed that the figure of 50 employees did not include those working in the retail units.

 

In response to a Member’s question about the calculations for cycle parking provision, the Officer stated this was based on floor space, rather than the number of employees. 

 

A Member asked if the servicing hours could be restricted i.e. not between 10pm and 7am and not in peak hours. An Officer stated the servicing hours were usually limited to 7am-11pm and the servicing would be from the servicing bay. An Officer stated that Condition 43 required the details for the servicing management plan to be submitted and approved in writing, and also stated that the number of servicing vehicles per day would reduce from seven to five.

 

A Member asked about guests being dropped-off. An Officer stated that there would not be a dedicated drop-off space and there were limitations due to the location of the site. She stated there was space available in front of Numbers 9-12 where people could be dropped-off and picked-up subject to it being safe to do so. There were no loading or unloading restrictions and no segregated cycling there.

 

In response to a question, an Officer stated that there were no Sheffield stands.

 

At this point, the Chairman sought approval from the Sub-Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

 

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

 

A Member raised concern in relation to the number of elements to be conditioned, the drop-off arrangements, and how people would be arriving at the hotel. She raised concern that the number of tube users was unrealistic considering that most people would be travelling with luggage and stated that more people would use taxis. She also expressed concerns about servicing conditions not being followed at other hotels and stated this was difficult to enforce unless an Officer was present at the time of a breach. She stated that servicing should be off-peak to avoid congestion and regarding drop-offs, she stated that cycle safety was paramount. She commented that these issues should be considered to mitigate against them. The Member suggested that the applicant should put money towards an accessibility study at Barbican tube station or going towards fund accessibility improvements along with other developments. The Member raised concern about what would happen if surveys showed the plans for the pocket garden design were not possible and the public benefit was therefore reduced. She stated concrete public benefits should be included, rather than left to condition.

 

A Member raised concern about the terraces. She stated that the terraces would need to be licensed if alcohol was to be sold and consumed on the two large terraces and welcomed the terraces being closed from 9pm to 7am. She raised concern that the balconies would be used by people drinking in the evening and stated this should be part of the hotel’s plan for the management of potential noise.

 

A Member welcomed the decision by the applicant not to put a restaurant in the hotel as this would help the food and beverage industry in the area.

 

A Member commented that significant applications were very complex and he did not consider it to be an issue that some elements were left to condition. He stated the Sub-Committee had to accept a level of ambiguity.

 

A Member stated that, due to the lack of detail, other local authorities would classify this as an outline planning application, rather than a full application. She stated a hotel use was the right use for the site but it was unfortunate that in terms of height, it exceeded what had been previously consented. She welcomed the number of accessible guest rooms. She also raised concern that the hotel would not using grey water, and raised concern about the impact of drop-offs on cyclists, concern that the hotel was too big and stated that some of the ground floor could be sacrificed to provide a drop-off space.

 

A Member raised concern about the height and massing, daylight and sunlight, sustainability and cycle safety impact as well as the grey water issue and the intensity of hotels which displaced office provision.

 

The Chairman stated that it was well recognised that the City of London Corporation had some of the top Planning Officers in the country and he was very confident they would manage the conditions and the business plan and take into consideration the issues raised around signage for public toilets and the terraces and the balconies. He stated that nearby amenities would benefit from having a hotel without its own bar and restaurant and this mitigated the potential for parties on terraces. He also stated that the pocket garden was an excellent public amenity and would enhance the area.

 

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

 

           Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 11 votes

                                                       OPPOSED – 5 votes

                                                       There were no abstentions.

 

The recommendations were therefore carried.

 

[Anthony Fitzpatrick, Deputy Edward Lord, Antony Manchester, Deputy Henry Pollard were not present for the whole item and 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 as amended by the addendum; and

2.        That 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.