Agenda item
Royal Mint Court, London, EC3N 4QN (PA/21/01327 & PA/21/01349)
Proposal
Redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.
Summary recommendation
Grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions and planning obligations
Minutes:
Update report was noted.
Paul Buckenham introduced the report for the redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II* listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.
Rikki Weir, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission
The Chair invited Sue Hughes, Dave Lake, Naz Islam and Simon Cheng to address the meeting in objection to the application. They highlighted concerns over the following:
- Inadequate amount of space outside site’s perimeter for protestors giving rise to concerns over road management including if protestors spill onto the carriageway itself the police will need to close a major road junction
· Location and space surrounding the site; inadequate space to ensure protesters can attend without risking their safety and security and the safety and security local residents.
· Concerns regarding cyber security upon local people and local communities.
· Road congestion and security issues
· Concerns that site security and management of protestors will only be considered and negotiated after planning permission is granted by planning condition, this is too late in the process.
· Concerns regarding the independence of the bomb blast assessment provider and how the blast assessment was procured.
· The restricted ‘official sensitive’ nature of the bomb blast assessment, means residents and Councillors were not aware of its full content.
· Concerns regarding the freedoms of tenants and leaseholders in properties surrounding the site, some of which have been bought by the Chinese state.
· Concerns regarding privacy to residents from overlooking due to the physical proximity to the rear of the site
· Some local residents’ groups and social tenants felt they were excluded from the planning consultation.
· A lack of robust public consultation and planning assessment in relation to security matters was undertaken with this application
· Concerns regarding additional for tenants and leaseholders due to the need for additional security embassy
- Concern local Tower Hamlets Homes residents will incur additional service costs from the arrival of the embassy on Royal Mint Estate
- With such a large embassy in this location the planning application has the potential to curb people’s freedoms
The objectors called on committee to reject the application to allow it to called-in by the Secretary of State.
The Chair invited Gary Ashton, Sunny Desai, Graham Laughlan, and Andrew Clark to address the meeting as the applicant’s representatives. They highlighted the following:
· The proposal is fully aligned with the Council planning policies; Council officers had recognised this and recommended approval.
· The proposed embassy use was in line with the provisions of the development plan; the nation(s) that occupy the embassy was not a planning matter.
· Statutory consultees had indicated they were satisfied with the proposal and the conditions to address issues that had been identified though consultation.
· The impact of covid restrictions on resident consultation activities.
· The site had been vacant for nearly a decade, proposal would revitalise the site, would protect and preserve historic buildings.
· Proposals for cultural and heritage installations and exhibition space which had been curated with stakeholders to communicate the unique history of the site.
· Proposals were developed in consultation with Met police. Applicant understood the Council had commissioned further independent advice from security experts. The Metropolitan Police had not objected to the application.
· Council’s heritage officer had confirmed the proposal for an embassy in this location was acceptable.
· All aspects of the of the proposal had been thoroughly and independently assessed by the relevant bodies to ensure the proposals met the highest standards
· The key architectural principles for the scheme and how the applicant felt they would improve the area, the pedestrian experience, the overall composition of the campus, and enhance the setting and the heritage assets. The officers’ report demonstrated Council officers and the GLA agree; Historic England support the proposals in heritage terms,
· Further details of the proposal’s sustainable development and carbon reduction initiatives.
· Further details of the package of benefits to be secured including apprenticeships and employment opportunities, funding towards employment skills training for local people, CCTV, public realm and greening.
The Chair invited Councillor Shafi Ahmed and Councillor Peter Golds to address the meeting in objection to the application. They highlighted the following:
· Alleged errors in the officer’s report regarding archaeological elements of the proposal site.
· Inadequate measures to ensure safety of embassy and protestors.
· Historic Royal Palaces had expressed concerns with the proposal.
· GLA had expressed concerns regarding compliance with the London Plan.
· The proposed proximity to Tower Bridge and Tower of London presented a reputational risk to the Borough, as the site likely to be subject to frequent demonstrations and protests. An alternative site away from tourist attractions would be more suitable. Crowds would also impact residents trying to go about with their daily lives
· Contest the scheme would conserve and safeguard the Outstanding Universal Value of the world heritage site
· Impact on highways, traffic and congestion.
· Large gathering of crowds will cause public realm damage and effect people’s daily lives
· Concern post the incident in Manchester over applicant’s ability to control their personnel
· Inadequate and failed consultation with residents and local Councillors.
Further to questions from Committee Members, planning officers provided more information on:
· Protest management conditions and input/analysis from TFL.
· The likely impact on roads and congestion from the increase in parking spaces.
· Separation distances policy and recommendations.
· Plans to prevent over-congestion during the construction process.
· More details on the heritage assessment. Overall assessment was the proposals would improve and enhance heritage.
· Work to ascertain the likely frequency of protests. TFL and Met Police were satisfied the site can cope.
· Further details of consultation meetings attendance.
· Further details of ecological survey and access to heritage site of the different installations.
· The procurement process for the Council’s commissioned blast assessment
· Anticipated impact on local residents around the site of the freehold acquisition by the Chinese state, including non-application of the Vienna Convention.
· How financial and non-financial obligations could be used to secure local value and benefits.
· The interpretation of planning policy on protection of heritage assets, buffer zones; the input of Historic England and its relevance to this matter. The overall conclusion was the proposal protects and enhances the setting to the world heritage sites.
· The role of the Council and Secretary of State in determination of the planning application. Officers asked the Committee to note that the Council was the relevant planning authority and had no authority to request or to influence the Secretary of State to determine this matter.
Further to questions from Committee Members, objectors provided more information on:
· Communications between the applicant and local residents in the consultation stage.
The Chair invited Inspector Lukvinder Singh (Metropolitan Police) to address the meeting to respond to concerns raised relating to crime and policing. Inspector Singh provided responses on the following:
· Protest and event management strategies to ensure residents’ protection.
· Likely impact of protests or a breach of security on local policing and how response would be coordinated.
· Mitigation measures to prevent hostile attacks.
· Rationale for the restriction placed on documentation regarding security assessment.
· Risk assessment and modelling for protests. Met Police were confident these could be managed and additional resources could be called-upon if necessary.
Councillors debated the application and made the following points:
· The risk of large crowds and demonstrators coming to the Borough would exacerbate over congestion in the local area, especially on The Highway.
· The existence of an embassy on the site would put residents’ safety and security at risk.
· Tower Hamlets already suffered with high crime. Policing demonstrations would place an additional burden on the borough’s policing resources.
· Any damage resulting from bomb blasts would place additional funding strains on the Council if it had to repair buildings affected.
· Some elements of the proposal were welcomed, specifically the bringing back into usage of a site which had been out of use for nearly ten years; works to protect and preserve architectural elements; and its sustainability and carbon reduction proposals.
· The responses from officers and other participants had not provided satisfactory responses to members concerns that the scheme adequately conserves, promotes and enhances the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, including the authenticity integrity and significance of their objectives and supports these goals through their management and protection
At this point in the meeting, the Chair moved that the Committee agree an extension of up to one-hour to conclude the application. This was AGREED without further discussion.
At this point in the meeting, the Chair moved that the meeting be adjourned for five minutes. This was AGREED without further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 9.30pm and resumed at 9.35pm.
PA/21/01327
On a unanimous vote the Officers recommendation to GRANT planning permission was not agreed.
Councillor Gulam Kibria Chowdhury moved and Councillor Kamrul Hussain seconded to REFUSE the application. On a vote of 7 in favour, 0 against with 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED that the planning application be REFUSED at Royal Mint Court, London, EC3N 4QN for the following development:
· Redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.
The reasons for the resolution to refuse are as follows:
· Impact on residents safety and security
· Impact on heritage assets both within the application site and around the site.
· Impact on the location as the key borough tourist destination Impact and strain on local police resources.
· Congested nature of the area and interrelationship that has with safety and security
PA/21/01349
On a vote of 3 in favour, 5 against the Officers recommendation to GRANT permission for listed building consent was not agreed.
Councillor Suluk Ahmed moved and Councillor Abdul Wahid seconded to REFUSE the application for listed building consent. On a vote of 5 in favour, 2 against with 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED that the listed building consent be REFUSED at Royal Mint Court, London, EC3N 4QN for the following development:
· Redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.
The reasons for the resolution to refuse are that this application is intrinsically linked to the planning application PA/21/01327 to create an embassy on the site.
Supporting documents:
-
Royal Mint Court - Planning Officer's Report, item 5.2
PDF 4 MB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 5.2/2 is restricted
-
SDC Update Report 5.2, item 5.2
PDF 216 KB