Agenda item
Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of nil for and 1 against, with 4 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ (PA/11/00163) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The voting Member indicated that he was minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns raised in connection with:
- Inappropriate and excessive height, scale, bulk and elevations of the proposed development.
- Inappropriate design of the proposed development resulting in detrimental effects on neighbouring Conservation Areas, listed buildings and local views.
- Inadequate servicing provisions for the proposed development which were considered likely to result in unacceptable pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.
NOTE: As there was no subsequent formal motion to refuse the application on these grounds, the application was effectively DEFERRED. Accordingly, Officers will prepare a supplementary report setting out the implications of the decision, for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Committee.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application (PA/11/00163) at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, 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 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 shaft 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.
Mr Smith commented that the application had been deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 15th September 2011 to enable Members to attend a site meeting (which had been held on 20th October) and enable the provision of additional, detailed visual images of the proposed development. Additional letters of support from the application had been received since the previous Committee from Transport For All and the Tower Hamlets Accessible Transport Forum.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Simon Ryan, Deputy Team Leader, Development Decisions, made a detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and update, including plans and a slideshow. Mr Ryan referred to the letter from the City of London’s Planning Services and Development Director to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) as reported at the previous meeting, suggesting that the Secretary of State might wish to call in the application. He indicated that, if the application were granted at this meeting, the matter would be referred to the DCLG.
Mr Ryan further commented on the applicant’s offer to increase their obligation to ensure 20% of the final workforce were Tower Hamlets residents to 40%. Those residents would also be provided with the Employment First Training Programme. He added that the proposed scheme would encroach on an area of adopted highway by way of over-cladding of the west elevation of the Tower Hill Underground station exit hall and the area of adopted highway would need to be extinguished. LBTH Highways had raised no objection to this.
Members then put questions relating to:
- Clarification of existing planning permissions affecting the site.
- The possibility of obtaining additional S106 mitigations relating to impact on the community.
- How the proposed additional employment for local residents would be effected and monitored to ensure the provision continued into the future.
- The estimated number of residents who would be hotel employees.
- Continuing concerns about street level deliveries to and from the hotel.
- Whether the Council was being required to take responsibility for step free access that should be addressed principally by London Underground Ltd.
Officers’ responses included comments that:
- Planning permissions already existed for redevelopment to provide offices, accommodation for London Underground and associated matters (PA/02/01400 dated 25th April 2005); Conservation Area Consent (PA/020/01401 dated 25th April 2005); variation of permission PA/02/1400 (PA/07/00266 dated 20th April 2007); further variation of PA/02/1400 (PA/08/00593 dated 11th June 2008).
- The existing S106 contributions were in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD and the step free access and associated costs mitigated impact on the community.
- The change in the applicant’s offer to 40% local residents as employees was significant. Monitoring/enforcement was to be enshrined in the S106 agreement and there would be robust mechanisms to ensure this took place. Regular updates would also be provided to ensure the obligations for training and employment were met.
- Details of the six-daily deliveries were contained in the applicant’s own business plan and they had agreed to limit deliveries to that number, which would comprise five light vehicles and one HGV. Officers of LBTH and the City of London were satisfied that the proposals were adequate and appropriate.
- With a proposed staff of 90 persons, it was envisaged that 35 residents would be employed.
- Improvements to step free access did not relate solely to disabled access and would enhance access to service users across the board. Such enhancement to access was embedded I planning policies. The site was a very sensitive location and Officers had worked with English Heritage and Historic Royal Palaces to ensure there would be a scheme worthy of planning permission.
Councillor Peter Golds made particular reference to the situation regarding the likely effects on Trinity Square Gardens, of the proposed building, which had resulted in a widespread public outcry. Trinity Square, the surrounding Georgian buildings and the Merchant Seamen’s War memorial would be dwarfed by the development and he was of the opinion that the scheme should be re-submitted on a much smaller scale.
On a vote of nil for and 1 against, with 4 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ (PA/11/00163) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The voting Member indicated that he was minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns raised in connection with:
- Inappropriate and excessive height, scale, bulk and elevations of the proposed development.
- Inappropriate design of the proposed development resulting in detrimental effects on neighbouring Conservation Areas, listed buildings and local views.
- Inadequate servicing provisions for the proposed development which were considered likely to result in unacceptable pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.
NOTE: As there was no subsequent formal motion to refuse the application on these grounds, the application was effectively DEFERRED. Accordingly, Officers will prepare a supplementary report setting out the implications of the decision, for consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Committee.
Supporting documents: