Agenda item
Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4DJ (PA/11/00163)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 0 for and 4 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee resolved that the Officers recommendation to grant planning permission PA/11/00163 at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London not be accepted.
Accordingly Councillor Bill Turner moved a motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out below seconded by Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED –
That planning permission PA/11/00163 be REFUSED at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4DJ for the following reasons:
1. The proposal, in terms of its height, scale, bulk, design and elevational treatment represents an inappropriate form of development and fails to preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, the Tower Conservation Area and surrounding conservation areas, adjacent listed buildings and the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Planning Policy Statement 5 (2010), policies 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 of the London Plan (2011), policies SP10 and SP12 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), saved policy DEV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies DEV2, CON1, CON2 and CFR18 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), which seek to protect the character, appearance and setting of heritage assets. The proposal also fails to accord with the aims and objectives of Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan (Historic Royal Palaces, 2007)
2. The proposal will have a detrimental impact upon protected views as detailed within the London Plan London Views Management Framework Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2010) and would fail to maintain local or long distance views in accordance policies 7.11 and 7.12 of the London Plan (2011) and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure large scale buildings are appropriately located and of a high deign standard, whilst also seeking to protect and enhance regional and locally important views
3. The proposal will provide inadequate arrangements for site servicing and coach drop off which will result in unacceptable vehicular and pedestrian conflict within the immediate locality to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to policy 6.7 of the London Plan (2011), policy SP09 of the Core Strategy Local Development Framework (2010), saved policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV17 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007)
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the item regarding Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London. He reported that since the Committee meeting on 28th November 2011, where the Committee refused the application, further representations had been received. As a result it was necessary that the application be reconsidered to take into account these representations alongside policy developments since that decision.
Mr Smith drew attention to the report and update detailing the representations received. The update also referred to the Localism Act and the new requirement to treat financial consideration as a material planning consideration where necessary.
Mr Simon Ryan (Deputy Team Leader Planning) presented the detailed reported assisted by a power point presentation. He explained the site location, history and details of the application. He explained the outcome of the public consultation and the representations for and against. He explained the Section 106 packages identified as A and B in the report and need for step free access at the Tower Hill underground station.
He explained the two representations received since the 28th November 2011 meeting. The first concerned the curvature of the platform at Tower Hill underground station. There were worries that this could leave a gap between the platform and trains affecting its accessibility. The second concerned the omission of the draft London Plan SPG ‘London World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings’ from previous reports to the Committee.
It was reported that London Underground Ltd (LUL) had investigated the concerns around the curvature of the platform as detailed in its letter in the Committee papers. It was their view that even with the new trains, manual wheel chair users would be able to manage the gap. Where not possible, staff would provide assistance or a boarding ramp.
Overall, LUL were of the view that the step free works would greatly improve accessibility as the steps were the most significant obstacle to access. The works would also enable a range of other customers to access the stations for example customers with luggage, push chairs and prams etc.
It was also considered that the proposal accorded with the London Plan SPG ‘London World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings’ and the Council’s Management Development Framework document.
The scheme would create local employment, respect the area and provide valuable step free access at Tower Hill underground station without any major impacts. It continued to comply with policy. Taking into account all of the evidence and representations, the Officers recommendation remained unchanged that the scheme should be granted.
In response, Members raised a number of concerns and points regarding the following matters.
- Over dominance on the surrounding area, particular the adjacent Georgian buildings.
- Lack of a dedicated servicing route given the existing congestion on the proposed route.
- The work undertaken to test the platforms accessibility to wheelchair users.
- The size of the gap between the platform and trains especially with the new trains.
- Customer profile statistics for the station.
Overall, it was feared that the curved platform would make it very difficult for wheelchair users to access the trains. Assurances was sought that this would not be the case.
Concern was also expressed at the adequacy of the S106. Particular the significant proportion devoted to the step free works given this could be compromised by the curved platform. Members also questioned the adequacy of the remaining sums to mitigate impact given the size of the scheme.
Members also noted the lack of step free access on the surrounding tube network. It was queried whether such works were a responsibility of LUL to provide as part of its improvement programme. Surprise was also expressed at the non attendance of LUL at the meeting.
In response to questions, Officers clarified the size of the gap between the platform and station both at present and with the new trains. Whilst some level of gap might remain, the significant reduction in steps works would make it possible for wheelchair users to board trains either independently or with assistance. The scheme had been subject to a detailed views and impact assessment. It was considered that the scheme would respect views and preserve the Tower of London World Heritage Site and nearby conservations areas. Historic Palaces were supportive of the scheme and English Heritage had no objections. The scheme complied with the conservation and heritage policy. Members were also reminded of the remit of the application for step free works as opposed to platform works the station. Alongside improving access, the works should significantly improve the surrounding public realm enhancing the appearance of the area.
On a vote of 0 for and 4 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee resolved that the Officers recommendation to grant planning permission PA/11/00163 at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London not be accepted.
Accordingly Councillor Bill Turner moved a motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out below seconded by Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED –
That planning permission PA/11/00163 be REFUSED at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4DJ for the following reasons:
1. The proposal, in terms of its height, scale, bulk, design and elevational treatment represents an inappropriate form of development and fails to preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, the Tower Conservation Area and surrounding conservation areas, adjacent listed buildings and the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument. As such, the proposal fails to accord with Planning Policy Statement 5 (2010), policies 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 of the London Plan (2011), policies SP10 and SP12 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), saved policy DEV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies DEV2, CON1, CON2 and CFR18 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007), which seek to protect the character, appearance and setting of heritage assets. The proposal also fails to accord with the aims and objectives of Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan (Historic Royal Palaces, 2007)
2. The proposal will have a detrimental impact upon protected views as detailed within the London Plan London Views Management Framework Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance (July 2010) and would fail to maintain local or long distance views in accordance policies 7.11 and 7.12 of the London Plan (2011) and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure large scale buildings are appropriately located and of a high deign standard, whilst also seeking to protect and enhance regional and locally important views
3. The proposal will provide inadequate arrangements for site servicing and coach drop off which will result in unacceptable vehicular and pedestrian conflict within the immediate locality to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to policy 6.7 of the London Plan (2011), policy SP09 of the Core Strategy Local Development Framework (2010), saved policies T16 and T19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV17 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (October 2007)
Supporting documents:
-
Tower House SDC report 1-3-12 FINAL, item 7.1
PDF 198 KB
-
Tower House Map, item 7.1
PDF 1008 KB
-
Tower House APPENDICES, item 7.1
PDF 3 MB
-
Tower House Appendix 7, item 7.1
PDF 242 KB
-
Tower House Appendix 8, item 7.1
PDF 343 KB