Agenda item
PA/11/00163 - Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4DJ
Decision:
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, (PA/11/00163) for the erection of a 9-storey building with basement, comprising a 370 room hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel facilities including café (Use Class C1), bar (Use Class A4) and meeting rooms (Use Class B1) with plant and storage at basement and roof level be DEFERRED for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee to enable:
- a site meeting to be held so that Members may better acquaint themselves with the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area;
- the provision of more detailed visual images of the proposed development.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head Building & Control), introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application for planning permission at Tower House, Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, for the erection of a 9-storey building with basement, comprising a 370-room hotel (Use ClassC1) with ancillary hotel facilities including café (Use Class A3), bar (Use Class A4) and meeting rooms (Use Class B1) with plant and storage at basement and roof level. The application also proposed the formation of a pedestrian walkway alongside the section of Roman Wall to the east of the site; the creation of a lift overrun to facilitate a lift shat from ticket hall level to platform level within the adjacent London Underground station and associated step free access works; works of hard and soft landscaping; and other works incidental to the application.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Patrick Gurner, a Director of Montague Evans, Consultant Engineers for the Trinity Square Group, spoke in objection to the application, expressing the view that the proposed servicing system for the hotel would have unacceptable implications for Trinity Square, which was the centre of a major transport interchange and the main arrival point for 50% of visitors to the Tower of London. He commented that servicing for the hotel should take place on-site, rather than on-street and added that drawings had been submitted to demonstrate how this could be achieved. The Corporation of the City of London had voiced similar concerns, although this did not seem to have been taken up by Tower Hamlets’ Highways Section. The proposal would result in many more vehicular movements in the immediate locality of Coopers Row and Trinity Square. Transport for London was also concerned and had asked for footpath widening to accommodate servicing. He suggested that the application should be deferred for the present time.
Mr Gurner then replied to questions from Members relating to the likelihood of adverse impact on the Square and concerns arising from the City of London.
Ms Marianne Fredericks, a City of London Councillor for Tower Ward and local resident, spoke against the application and stated that the proposals were contrary to the Borough’s Development Plan and should be refused. Listed buildings would be adversely affected and it was essential to protect these assets. No proper description or analysis had been provided on the likely harm to the environment of buildings near the Tower House site and the size of the hotel meant that it would loom over Conservation Area buildings. The Tower Hill area was already well-served by hotels for all budget ranges and consequently demand for hotel space was well and truly met. Buildings affected by the proposals included Tower House, 41/42 Trinity Square, the Crescent Conservation Area, Tower square Gardens and the Merchant Seamen’s War Memorial. Concerns expressed by the City of London had not been addressed and she felt that a site visit would be appropriate for Members of the Committee to gain more insight into the local impact of the hotel.
Ms Fredericks then responded to questions from Members regarding her concerns for effects of the scheme on listed buildings, the number of existing hotels in the locality of Trinity Square and the likely problems caused by increased vehicular movements in servicing the new hotel.
Mr Martyn Sibley, speaking in favour of the application, stated that he had just finished working on a project to evaluate the step free access works carried out by TfL at various London Underground Stations so he knew how expensive the proposed lift shafts and step free access work at Tower Hill would be. He also knew how vital they were to hundreds of thousands of people who could not use the tube network because not enough stations were accessible. It was exactly what this area of London needed. It would mean wheelchair users and families with push chairs could access a fantastic tourist location and a brand new hotel, employing local people. By approving the scheme, Councillors would be generating a long term benefit to this area. Vacant land would be used, local jobs would be created and this corner of London would be opened up to mobility impaired people like him who would otherwise miss out on coming to Tower Hill.
Mr Michael Levie, speaking as the applicant’s agent, stated that he was a founder member of the citizenM hotel group that provided accommodation for independent travellers and did not cater for block bookings or parties. Their operations used the greenest methods possible and had an excellent record in achieving sustainability. The applicants had worked with Council Officers and wanted all employees of the hotel, of whom there would be about 80, to come from Tower Hamlets. It was hoped to encourage local people back to work and provide job opportunities for school leavers. Two new lift to Tower Hill station would be provided at the applicants’ expense. It was hoped that the hotel would make a long term contribution to the Borough.
Mr Levie then replied to questions put by Members relating to aspirations for providing work for local residents and the applicants’ efforts to avoid adverse effects on listed buildings.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Simon Ryan (Deputy Team Leader Development & Renewal), made a detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and update, including plans and a slideshow. He summarised the arguments for and against the proposal as engendered by wide public consultation. Officers were satisfied that the scale, mass and height of the proposed scheme was appropriate for the surrounding area and did not overwhelm the Tower of London buildings. There had been lengthy discussions over several months to protect local heritage and the scheme also provided much needed step free access to the Tower Hill station. There would be upgrades to the public realm around the Tower Hill underground and DLR interchange. Wider pavements would be provided and conditions ensured that adverse transport and pedestrian movements would be avoided.
Members then put questions relating to:
- The impact of the hotel on Trinity House and concerns that the latter would be dominated by the new building.
- The effects on the locality of large scale on-street deliveries to the hotel, of food, drink, bedding, etc that would have to be brought in large vehicles which would obstruct the street over long periods.
- The effect resulting from the height of the proposed hotel, as other high buildings in the area were at some distance from Trinity Square.
- Whether there had been any other plans to upgrade Tower Hill station as the proposed step free access seemed to contribute more to London Underground than the Borough.
- Whether land was available to provide the new access and if the applicants were legally obliged to make the provision.
- Whether there could be any assurance of jobs for local residents other than an aspiration for provision of 20% of the hotel workforce.
Officers’ responses included comments that:
· The dimensions of the proposed hotel had been assessed and were not considered to present a significant impact on the locality. The height of the building was considered by English Heritage and the Historical Palaces to preserve the local assets.
· The applicants had agreed that there would not be more than six vehicular movements daily for on-street servicing purposes. Servicing periods would occur at periods of low pedestrian density. No servicing would take place between 7.00 am – 10 am or 4 pm – 7 pm. There would also be double yellow lines along the relevant kerbs and kerb faces.
· The step-free access was important not only for London Underground but constituted a significant benefit for the Borough both for residents and tourists. The S106 agreement required that the access should be provided before the hotel could open.
· The access included a very small area of land of unknown ownership but this would have to be resolved by the applicants to provide the facility before the hotel could operate.
· While 20% employment was an aspiration, finance would also be provided to ensure local people had access to suitable training.
Following further debate, the Chair commented that it was obvious that Members still had substantial concerns over the impact of the scheme on the locality of Trinity Square. Accordingly, he moved and, on a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, (PA/11/00163) for the erection of a 9-storey building with basement, comprising a 370 room hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel facilities including café (Use Class C1), bar (Use Class A4) and meeting rooms (Use Class B1) with plant and storage at basement and roof level be DEFERRED for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee to enable:
- a site meeting to be held so that Members may better acquaint themselves with the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area;
- the provision of more detailed visual images of the proposed development.
Supporting documents:
-
FINAL%20report%2038-40%20Trinity%20Square1, item 7.1
PDF 712 KB
-
Item 9.3a_38-40 Trinity Sq Map, item 7.1
PDF 1 MB