Agenda item

1-2 Broadgate London EC2M 2QS

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.


The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking approval for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a building arranged over two basement levels, lower ground, upper ground and 12 upper floors plus rooftop plant to provide flexible retail, leisure and mixed retail/leisure uses (Class A1/A3/A4/D2/Sui Generis) at lower levels (Basement to 2nd floor), restaurant (Class A3) at 7th floor level and office (Class B1) at upper floor levels (3rd to 12th floor); hard and soft landscaping works; outdoor seating associated with ground level retail and other works incidental to the development. (78,020sq.m GEA).


The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director drew the Committee’s attention to the tabled addendum sheet, which advised of corrections and amended conditions. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director then introduced the application to Members and presented the officer’s report.


In the absence of any speakers, Members then debated the application. A Member stated that whilst they saw the advantage of public access and increased permeability, they were concerned about the narrowing of Finsbury Avenue. The Member felt that the provision of on site cycle parking was inadequate, with no contribution to the provision of cycle hire schemes and a lack of visitor spaces, and asked if officers would address this.


A Member commended the developers for the amount of pedestrian access proposed in the scheme. The scheme would have a positive impact at ground level.


A Member added that they were impressed with the proposal which combined a number of developing needs of the City of London. The step-free access was particularly welcome. The Member added that the Committee should press for the condition set out on page 202 suggesting a post-construction BREEAM assessment. The Member queried how the developer would comply with the requirement set out on page 229 for Cycle Hire memberships for all employees of the first occupiers of the land uses. A Member added their congratulations to the applicant and praised the way the scheme covered the whole area. The scheme was a good example of what to encourage.


Members then raised a number of further points regarding Finsbury Avenue, permeability, progress in addressing the concerns raised about the energy strategy, and conditions around deliveries for retail units.


The Director of the Built Environment responded to points raised by Members, and advised the Committee that there would be no loss of public highway, only estate land. Finsbury Avenue would be narrowed by bringing the existing building façade out to the existing stair turrets. Capacity would be widened elsewhere, and officers were satisfied that the development enhanced pedestrian space and permeability. There was little scope for visitor short-stay cycling spaces as basement access could not be allowed. The developer had mitigated this by increasing curtilage spaces and overproviding long-stay parking spaces.

A Member noted that the addendum sheet proposed to remove the City’s planning obligation on cycle hire membership. The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director responded that this was still a matter of discussion for the Section 106 agreement and could continue to press for this. Members agreed that the addendum should keep the wording on cycle hire.


The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director added that officers would press for the post-construction BREEAM assessment and the energy strategy would need GLA agreement. Members were advised that Broadgate had underground servicing and officers were looking at consolidation plans.


A Member said that the development would potentially have lots of small retail units, and lots of deliveries would be unsuitable even for underground servicing. The Director of the Built Environment responded that he understood the Member’s reservation and assured the Committee that there was a good understanding of requirements, and officers would be robust on consolidation. Members’ points would be picked up in the delivery management plan.


A Member asked officers to be firmer and make efforts to minimise deliveries through the plans. The Member also had reservations about the pavement on Finsbury Avenue due to the uplift on the building and pavement being reduced. The pavements were already difficult to navigate and needed to be safe. The Director of the Built Environment responded that the pavement would be narrower, but the remaining provision was adequate for the predicted flow of pedestrians.


The Chairman advised the Committee that the developer was present at the meeting and hoped they had taken note of Members’ concerns.


Arising from the discussion, the application was then put to the vote amongst Members, who voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation.


RESOLVED – That the Planning & Transportation Committee:


(1) Authorise the Chief Planning Officer to determine the above

application for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the

attached schedule and addendum sheet subject to:


(a) the Mayor of London being given 14 days to decide whether to allow the

Corporation to grant planning permission as recommended, or to direct

refusal, or to determine the application himself (Article 5(1)(a) of the Town &

Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008);


(b) planning obligations and other agreements being entered into under

Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the

Highway Act 1980 in respect of those matters set out in the report, the

decision notice not to be issued until the Section 106 obligations have been



(2) That your Officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in

respect of those matters set out in "Planning Obligations" under Section 106

and any necessary agreements under Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980.


Supporting documents: