Public Document Pack

Planning and Transportation Committee

Date: TUESDAY, 5 JANUARY 2021 Time: 10.30 am Venue: VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING (ACCESSIBLE REMOTELY)

Members: Deputy Alastair Moss (Chair) Alderman Robert Hughes-Penney Oliver Sells QC (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Munsur Ali Shravan Joshi Randall Anderson Alderwoman Susan Langley Peter Bennett Oliver Lodge Mark Bostock Natasha Maria Cabrera Lloyd-Owen Deputy Keith Bottomley Andrew Mayer Henry Colthurst Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Commoner) Deputy Peter Dunphy Sylvia Moys Alderman Emma Edhem Barbara Newman John Edwards Graham Packham Helen Fentimen Susan Pearson Marianne Fredericks Judith Pleasance Tracey Graham Deputy Henry Pollard Graeme Harrower James de Sausmarez Sheriff Christopher Hayward William Upton QC Christopher Hill Alderman Sir David Wootton Michael Hudson

Enquiries: Gemma Stokley [email protected]

Accessing the virtual public meeting Members of the public can observe this virtual public meeting at the below link: https://youtu.be/KEq8_jkwVt0 This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following regulations made under Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. A recording of the public meeting will be available via the above link following the end of the public meeting for up to one municipal year. Please note: Online meeting recordings do not constitute the formal minutes of the meeting; minutes are written and are available on the City of London Corporation’s website. Recordings may be edited, at the discretion of the proper officer, to remove any inappropriate material.

John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive

AGENDA

Part 1 - Public Agenda

1. APOLOGIES

2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

3. MINUTES To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 15 December 2020.

For Decision (Pages 1 - 22)

4. 186 - 190 BISHOPSGATE LONDON EC2M 4NR Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

For Decision (Pages 23 - 60)

5. CITY STREETS: TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE TO SUPPORT COVID-19 RECOVERY Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

For Decision (Pages 61 - 92)

6. RECOVERY TASK FORCE: INTERIM REPORT WITH PRELIMINARY BLUEPRINT Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth.

For Information (Pages 93 - 114)

7. PUBLIC MINUTES OF THE STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB-COMMITTEE To receive the draft public minutes and summary of the Streets and Walkways Sub- Committee held virtually on 1 December 2020.

For Information (Pages 115 - 124)

8. OUTSTANDING ACTIONS Report of the Town Clerk.

For Information (Pages 125 - 128)

2

9. PUBLIC LIFT REPORT Report of the City Surveyor.

For Information (Pages 129 - 130)

10. DELEGATED DECISIONS OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

For Information (Pages 131 - 136)

11. VALID PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

For Information (Pages 137 - 140)

12. PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN Report of the Town Clerk.

For Information (Pages 141 - 142)

13. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

14. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT

15. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC MOTION – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

For Decision

Part 2 - Non-public Agenda

16. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held virtually on 15 December 2021.

For Decision (Pages 143 - 144)

3

17. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES OF THE STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB-COMMITTEE To receive the draft non-public minutes and summary of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee held virtually on 1 December 2020.

For Information (Pages 145 - 146)

18. NON-PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN Report of the Town Clerk.

For Information (Pages 147 - 148)

19. NON-PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

20. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED

4

Agenda Item 3

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 15 December 2020

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee held virtually at 10.30 am

Present

Members: Deputy Alastair Moss (Chair) Alderman Robert Hughes-Penney Oliver Sells QC (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Randall Anderson Shravan Joshi Peter Bennett Alderwoman Susan Langley Mark Bostock Andrew Mayer Deputy Keith Bottomley Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Commoner) Alderman Emma Edhem Barbara Newman John Edwards Graham Packham Helen Fentimen Susan Pearson Marianne Fredericks Judith Pleasance Tracey Graham Deputy Henry Pollard Graeme Harrower James de Sausmarez Sheriff Christopher Hayward William Upton QC Christopher Hill Alderman Sir David Wootton Michael Hudson

Officers: Gemma Stokley - Town Clerk's Department Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk Rhiannon Leary - Town Clerk’s Department Christopher Rumbles - Town Clerk’s Department Shani Annand-Baron - Media Officer Aqib Hussain - Technology Support Partner Simon Owen - Chamberlain's Department Dipti Patel - Chamberlain’s Department Deborah Cluett - Comptroller and City Solicitor's Department Jessica Lees - City Surveyor’s Department Gwyn Richards - Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director David Horkan - Department of the Built Environment Gordon Roy - Department of the Built Environment Elisabeth Hannah - Department of the Built Environment Paul Monaghan - Department of the Built Environment Bhakti Depala - Department of the Built Environment Peter Shadbolt - Department of the Built Environment Bruce McVean - Department of the Built Environment Matt Ball - Department of the Built Environment Gemma Delves - Department of the Built Environment

Page 1 Kieran Mackay - Department of the Built Environment Tom Noble - Department of the Built Environment Richard Steele - Department of the Built Environment Clarisse Tavin - Department of the Built Environment Dom Strickland - Department of the Built Environment Lucy Foreman - Department of the Built Environment Sonia Williams - Department of the Built Environment Rachel Pye - Markets and Consumer Protection

Also in Attendance: Ann Holmes – Common Councilman Ruth Shilston – RWDI – Consulting Engineers and Scientists

Introductions The Town Clerk opened the meeting by introducing herself and stating that the Committee was quorate.

A roll call of Members present was undertaken.

The Town Clerk highlighted that the meeting was being recorded as well as live streamed and would be made available on the City Corporation’s YouTube page for a period of time after the meeting had concluded. With this in mind, it was confirmed that participants in the meeting had all individually agreed and given their consent to being recorded and that all personal data would be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The Town Clerk highlighted that, for further information on this, viewers could contact the City Corporation using the details provided on the public webpages.

The Chair then introduced himself and welcomed all those in attendance and viewing the meeting via YouTube.

1. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Henry Colthurst, Peter Dunphy, Natasha Lloyd – Owen, Oliver Lodge and Sylvia Moys.

2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA The Chair – Deputy Alastair Moss - declared a professional conflict of interest in relation to an objection received on agenda Item 4 – 15 Minories, 57-60 & 62 Aldgate High Street and 1 Little Somerset Street, London, EC3 - and advised that, as such, he would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of this item and allow the Deputy Chairman to manage this.

3. MINUTES The Committee considered the public minutes and summary of the meeting held virtually on 17 November 2017 and approved them as a correct record.

MATTERS ARISING

Page 2 Anonymisation in Minutes – A Member commented that, whilst he felt that the draft minutes had been well written, they were also bound by the convention that Member contributions were to be anonymised. For the sake of transparency, the Member asked that they be amended so that Members asking questions or making comments were identified by name and that this was now done in the minutes of all future meetings of this Committee. The Member also proposed that the way that individual Members voted at this Committee were recorded within the minutes. He concluded by stating that, whilst he would normally provide the Chair to and Committee Clerk with advanced written warning of any proposed amendments the minutes, he had not done so on this occasion as he felt that there had been recent efforts within the Corporation to limit and control Member participation in meetings and he wanted to protest against this.

The Chair commented that he was not opposed to Members being named within the minutes but asked the Town Clerk to comment on the current convention and the background to this. The Town Clerk reported that, as already stated, it was convention across all Corporation Committees and Sub- Committees that Member contributions and votes were anonymised. If the Committee as a whole were supportive of changing this practice for these meetings this could be considered. The Town Clerk added that, at present, all meetings were broadcast live and were also recorded so that all Member contributions were visible and the way in which individual Members voted was fully transparent.

Another Member spoke to state that, as this Committee had a quasi-judicial role, she also felt that Members should be named in the minutes. She stated that she felt that this would be particularly helpful in terms of planning inquiries that could take place up to 2 years after an application had been considered. The Member went on to suggest that Members had previously been named in Planning and Transportation Committee minutes but that, as elections approached, certain Members had frequently spoken to have their names recorded and the practice had been dropped as a result. The Member concluded that she also intended to propose that contributions in the chat bar were appended to the minutes of all future meetings so that these were automatically visible to the public. The Chair responded by underlining that the chat bar should not be used for debate as this was very hard to monitor during a live meeting. Secondly, the Chair asked the Comptroller and City Solicitor to comment on the quasi-judicial nature or otherwise of this Committee. The Comptroller and City Solicitor explained that there was quite long-standing case law on this, and the conclusion reached was that the role of a Planning Committee was not quasi-judicial.

The Deputy Chairman spoke to state that he did not have a strong view either way on this proposal but underlined that he was strongly opposed to Members not having reasonable notice of suggested changes to minutes such as these and not seemingly being asked to make policy on the hoof.

Another Member spoke to state that he had experience elsewhere where the practice had been to record the names of those who had raised points and that

Page 3 this had led to grandstanding. As a result, he had advised that the practice should be reversed, and this had led to much smoother meetings. He added that he felt that this practice could become particularly problematic for this Committee as elections approached and given that its meetings were already very lengthy.

The Member had made the proposal spoke again to state that, as meetings were currently recorded for all to go back and review, the argument suggesting that the naming of Members in minutes would lead to grandstanding fell away. The naming of Members in the minutes would take the burden off of people needing to navigate lengthy recordings to try and determine who had said what. Finally, on the statement from the Comptroller and City Solicitor suggesting that the proceedings of this Committee were not quasi-judicial, the Member surmised that this was quoted from the Persimmon case which had been said in the context that Members may have political views however, the judge had also said that the role of Planning Committees was to assess applications impartially and, in that sense, they could be considered quasi-judicial.

Another Member stated that he did not feel strongly either way on this proposal but commented that transparency and openness should be primary in the minds of all in all of their work. However, he noted that any decision on this could have wider ramifications across the Corporation and that Officers should therefore be asked to bring forward a paper on this proposal outlining the arguments for and against this alongside their own suggestions and thoughts.

Another Member commented that, as a point of principal, she had no objection to Members being named within minutes. She went on to comment that not all Members were offered the opportunity to speak at meetings as had been demonstrated at the last meeting of this Committee when a motion was brought to bring debate to a close. In this instance, the Member had taken the opportunity to include her comment within the chat box and she felt that this was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Town Clerk reiterated that the naming of Members in minutes went against the house style that had long since been set down by the Policy and Resources Committee and that, at the very least, any decision here would require a resolution back to this Committee. The Town Clerk added that, whilst it was common for Members to express differences of opinion, this would also go against the ethos of Committee based decision making. At present, if individual Members wished for their objection/an abstention to be recorded by name they were able to do so but it was not suggested that this equate to a ‘he said’ ‘she said’, verbatim record of the meeting.

A Member spoke again to suggest that a case should be put to the Policy and Resources Committee to amend the convention for this Committee, particularly around the recording of the way that individual Members voted. The Member stated that she believed that the majority of councils in England did record this information in their minutes. Another Member asked that this fact and the practice elsewhere also be checked to help inform the Committee’s decision.

Page 4 The Chair noted that the Committee made formal resolutions on matters and that, as such, they spoke with one voice. Having said that, he went on to request that Officers bring back a paper on this matter to a future meeting of the Committee so that an informed decision could be made.

150 Aldersgate Street (pages 5-21) – A Member stated that the Chair had already received prior notice of this point in an email issued to him by 8 Members of this Committee on 24 November 2020. He asked the Chair to explain why he had not exercised his discretion under Standing Order No. 37 (3) to disallow the Motion to stop the debate on the application on the grounds that it was premature.

Report of Action Taken (page 26) – The same Member questioned how the proposal that the Chair and Deputy Chairman take more decisions under urgency procedures to help reduce the length of committee meetings would not be an abuse of the procedure that exists to deal with urgent matters that could not await the next scheduled meeting. He also questioned how merely reporting matters decided by the Chair and Deputy Chairman respected the authority delegated to this Committee by the Court to make these decisions.

The Chair undertook to respond to both of these queries in writing in due course.

4. 15 MINORIES, 57-60 & 62 ALDGATE HIGH STREET AND 1 LITTLE SOMERSET STREET LONDON EC3 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding 15 Minories, 57-60 & 62 Aldgate High Street and 1 Little Somerset Street, London, EC3, specifically, the demolition of existing structures, and erection of a mixed use office building Class B1(a), including ground floor Class A1, Class A3, and Class A4 uses. (30,901 sq. m. gea.).

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director presented the application and also drew Members’ attention to the fact that an addendum to the report had been circulated and published yesterday afternoon as had some late representations from an objector. Members were informed that the site in question had a very long and convoluted planning history, spanning back more than 15 years. Officers commented that this was probably a reflection of the challenging nature of the site which had a number of subterranean constraints such as tunnels. It was highlighted that this was a key, strategic location for the City, on the eastern gateway to the City, directly opposite Aldgate tube station.

Members were shown images of the existing site which Officers referred to as undistinguished introduction to the City. Officers reported that, in 2014, this Committee had resolved to grant a fairly transformational Master Plan to address this entire site going as far down as to the Guinness Estate at the northern end which involved three separate buildings – one residential block to the south, a hotel scheme in the centre and an office scheme on Aldgate High Street. There was therefore a permission which had been implemented on this site and the southern residential building had been built out to shell and core,

Page 5 the hotel building was nearing completion and set to open in Spring 2021. This proposal therefore only related to the office component of the scheme which was largely similar to what had already been granted with the only real change being that the footprint of this scheme now extended eastwards to incorporate Rennie House which had now been acquired by the applicant and also the Still and Star public house which was a key part of these proposals.

Members were shown images comparing the existing, consented and newly proposed schemes from Aldgate High Street looking east.

With regard to the Still and Star, Officers reported that this was an early/mid- 19th century public house known as a ‘slum pub’ which had been the subject of quite substantial alterations both internally and externally and was therefore a shadow of its former self. The building was not listed or situated in a Conservation Area however, it did have sufficient charm and significance to be given the title of non-designated heritage asset, but this did not confer additional protection on the building. Officers went on to report that its setting had been greatly changed – it had once sat in an intimate and domestic alleyway but was now surrounded by car-parking space in a rather wind-wept area of paving. Members were shown an aerial view of the site looking north as well as an image of the view of the Still and Star from Little Somerset Street in its current setting.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that he wanted to clarify from the outset that the first round of consultation on this scheme had involved the demolition of the Still and Star but did not propose its replacement on the site. This consultation had received approximately 270 objections concerning the loss of the Still and Star. As a result of this and the designation of it as an asset of community value by the City, following a campaign headed by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale), the applicant re- designed the scheme to reinstate the Still and Star slightly to the east of where it was currently situated. This was the subject of a further round of consultation where objections to this were still lodged but far fewer than had been the case previously. Perhaps most significantly, the East London and City branch of CAMRA had not objected to the current scheme.

Members were shown images and provided with an overview of the ground floor plan of the current proposals. These demonstrated that the site was sat largely on top of the District and Circle Line subterranean railway tunnels just under the surface. Members were shown images of the proposed structural grid that would be required to support the building above. Critically, the footprint of the existing Still and Star sat in the area where it was possible to come to ground in terms of foundations. The applicant had investigated the possibility of doing so with the Still and Star in situ, but this was not feasible. The building was therefore set to be reimagined and relocated elsewhere on the site resulting in an additional 90 sr. m. for the building and more than double the active pub frontage with a prominent frontage onto Aldgate High Street. At ground floor, proposals were for an office reception facing out onto Aldgate High Street with a retail element on the north-east corner, which was critical, for Officers, to enliven Aldgate and a new, reimagined Harrow Alley. The southern

Page 6 side at ground floor level would also be retail throughout and would include an entrance to cycle storage space. The new pedestrian route, both in terms of covered walkways and externally are provided at very generous width which would allow for very good pedestrian comfort levels as well as things such as tables and chairs.

Officers reported that stopping up proposals were around a relatively significant area and that a new dedicated public highway would be provided along the newly reimagined Harrow Alley which was considered acceptable.

At basement level, the subterranean constraints were clear. Officers commented that this was an excellent scheme in terms of cycling provision and that it exceeded both the short-term and the long-stay cycling provision expectations of the London Plan providing 54 short stay spaces at ground floor level and 365 long-stay cycle spaces.

Officers went on to report that the transformational Master Plan for this site granted in 2014, saw the amalgamation of servicing for the residential, hotel and office elements of the scheme at a single point to minimise vehicle intrusion into the public realm. At basement level there was proposed to be an integrated servicing arrangement with the office, hotel and residential building as well as the Still and Star. In addition, this would be consolidated to off-peak deliveries and a Delivery Service Plan would be required as part of the Section 106 agreement. The conditions preventing night-time deliveries would also be carried over due to nearby residential dwellings.

In terms of the office floor plating, the expansion of the footprint to the east provided for a much more successful office floorplate that was capable of being flexibly subdivided by tenants to incorporate things such as co-working spaces . It had been designed with a view to being responsive to the changes in office demands which had been accelerated due to COVID-19. The proposals included an uplift of 10,000 sq. m. in office space over and above the consented scheme which was a very generous contribution to the City Corporation’s target on this. Moving up through the building and concentrating on upper level floors, roof terraces were to be provided on a number of levels and Members were informed that there would be an Environmental Health Condition limiting the use of these to avoid disturbances to residents nearby.

The Committee were shown an image of the east west cross section of the scheme depicting the reimagined Still and Star and the very generous 5m high, vaulted, walkways through the building which was highlighted as a very dynamic and striking feature of the design. Members were also shown existing and proposed aerial views of the site, depicting it in its wider context and illustrating that the proposed height of the building was comparable with other buildings in the vicinity. Officers underlined that this was a critical area in terms of the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site, in particular from Queen’s Walk and that the height of the proposed building had been negotiated to ensure that there was no harm to the view of the White Tower.

Page 7 Members were informed that the design approach largely mirrored that of the previously consented scheme, involving glazed frontage and curvaceous aluminium fins. Members were shown images of the North, South, East and West elevations of the proposed building.

Members were informed that a new pedestrian crossing would be installed at Aldgate High Street with the approval of TfL. With regards to the view from St Botolph Street looking west, the Committee were informed that there would be a marginal increase in the buildings footprint to the east but not to an extent that it was considered harmful to the setting of the Hoop and Grapes which was a listed building. Other views were shown with Officers highlighting that there would be no significant change between the consented and newly proposed scheme.

Officers went on to focus specifically on the Still and Str – a key element of the scheme. The Committee were shown images of the existing building from Little Somerset Street looking north depicting the red-brick clad elevation which bore little resemblance to its original appearance. Alongside this, Members were shown images of the consented and newly proposed scheme which illustrated that the consented scheme came very close to the Still and Star but that the proposed scheme would move Little Somerset House to the east and rename it ‘Harrow Alley’ with the Still and Star relocated to the right hand side of this. Members were also shown an image of the reimagined Still and Star from Aldgate High Street and given a rationale behind the reinvention of it as an architectural piece. The elevation on Aldgate High Street would be clearly visible from a wide area which would serve to increase its viability and widen its appeal. The architects had carried out a very thorough assessment of London pubs and had found that there were numerous examples of very successful premises that had the proposed layout of the reimagined Still and Star. Members were also shown comparative images of the existing and proposed setting for the Still and Star which depicted the significant increase in the elevation of the premises and its prominence but also the domestic quality of the architecture. The building would also be reinstated as part of a much more coherent alleyway than existed at present. It was felt that these measures, alongside the much-increased footprint, would increase the Still and Star’s contribution to the social life of the City and its viability/popularity. Officers commented that the design approach was particularly creative and innovative with the architect proposing to take 3D scans of the existing facades of the Still and Star and reconfigure these in coloured concrete as a celebration of the existing building which would be displayed on Aldgate High Street. The reimagined Still and Star would include a roof garden including generous planting. Officers went on to comment that the care taken by the architect to assess the essential qualities of both the Still and Star and of a London pub had been particularly impressive and there were also proposals to reinstate a gin distillery here and to have a nursery for botanics for the gin. The interior of the premises would seek to replicate the historic look and feel of a typical London pub. This would be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

In summary, the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director commented that this was a very strategic scheme where existing permission

Page 8 had already been granted for the site. These proposals would be the final piece in the regeneration of an underutilised site that was currently somewhat of an eyesore in a key part of the City. Members were reminded that this was an extremely challenging site in engineering terms which these proposals had overcome in a very creative manner and would provide 28,000 sq. m. of high- quality and flexible office floor space which was an additional 10,000 sq. m. over the existing, consented scheme. The proposals would also offer vibrant retail unit and a generous pedestrian route in pedestrianised public realm. It was a model scheme in terms of plans for servicing and cycle space. The Still and Star was, unfortunately, situated in one of the few areas of the site where it was possible to lay foundations and all options of retaining the building that had been considered had not proved to be feasible. Officers commented that, whilst the premises were an undesignated heritage asset it was a shadow of its former self and had been heavily altered. The pub was also an asset of community value due to its contribution to social life in the City and Officers were of the view that this was a very creative scheme in terms of reinventing and reinvigorating the Still and Star as a social and community asset. Officers felt that this was an accomplished, innovative, contemporary imagination celebrating the Still and Star’s history and its significance after the very thorough assessment carried out by the applicant and the architect. It was recognised that many of London’s most enduring pubs had a long history of rebuilding, remodelling and even relocation meaning that this was not alien or incongruous . The newly proposed Still and Star would be larger than the existing building with a 20% increase in floorspace and double the active frontage of the existing Still and Star which was somewhat lost in its current location. The new premises would have a prominent location on Aldgate High Street, with a long elevation along Harrow Alley and was felt to be a very accomplished and potentially award-winning re-birth of the Still and Star on a challenging site. It was felt that this would strengthen the long-term viability and popularity of the pub which would enhance its contributions serving the wider community.

The Deputy Chairman thanked Officers for their presentation and invited questions of Officers from the Committee.

A Member referred to the late representation received from the adjacent landowner requesting further conditions to ensure that there would be no future issues with their own redevelopment next door to this site. She also asked if there could be conditions to ensure that the Still and Star was not demolished or altered until the 3D castings of the pub had taken place. In terms of the community asset value of the Still and Star, the Member also questioned whether we were fulfilling the listing should the pub be relocated as proposed. Officers stated that they understood that there had been a lot of discussion between the applicant and the neighbouring landowner, commenting that this kind of relationship was quite commonplace in the City as Members would expect. Officers also reported that there was a condition applied that the City would approve details of the flank elevation as there were concerns that this should not be a dominant elevation and that it should be an active and not a dormant elevation. In terms of conditions relating to the proposed 3D castings, it was felt that this would be better captured via a Section 106 agreement which

Page 9 would be very thorough to ensure that this was delivered in its entirety. With regard to the pub being an asset of community value, it was reported that this was effectively a recognition that the Still and Star contributed to the social, community life of the City and it was felt that these proposals would only serve to strengthen this in terms of increasing its size and presence.

Another Member spoke to question the environmental aspects of the scheme, commenting that she had not found any information in the report about Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). She had, however, noted a lengthy email from Thames Water and asked Officers if they could provide any further explanation on this. Officers reported that the developer would need to enter into discussions with Thames Water to check that the capacity for drainage is sufficient to accommodate the development. With regards to SuDS, it was noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objections to scheme and that there were two conditions requiring further details of the design of the SuDS Strategy which was submitted as part of the application.

Another Member spoke to compliment the comprehensive background information provided on the scheme and questioned the letter received last week from the adjacent landowner and questioned whether it was the case, as stated within the report, that there would be a remaining gap between the sites that could potentially become a wind tunnel. If this were correct, she questioned whether Offices had been able to undertake any work to determine whether or not this would be acceptable in terms of wind standards. Officers responded to state that the reason that the building would be set back was to ensure that development of the adjoining site was not compromised. It was not envisaged that this would lead to any issues such as the creation of a wind tunnel, but this would need to be addressed should a proposal come forward for the adjoining site. If this were the case, it was felt that this could be readily resolved with the use of things such as brise soleils.

A Member questioned the Environmental credentials of the building and noted that the report made reference to the ambition of achieving a BREEAM excellent rating and that this would be conditioned. He sought clarity on the fact that this was both agreed and understood by the developer. On carbon emissions, he also sought to confirm what energy performance certification level the developers were committed to, suggesting that this ought to be as high as possible. Officers reported that the developer was taking a very proactive approach to delivering a much improved BREEAM and carbon emission rating and that both of these points were conditioned to ensure the very highest achievable standards.

Another Member spoke to commend the comprehensive presentation of this project. He went on to question who the freeholder of the site was and whether the City of London had an interest. Officers reported that the applicant was 4C Hotels and confirmed that there was no City interest in the site. It was reported that TfL was the freeholder.

Page 10 In response to questions, the Deputy Chair reported that there were no objectors or applicants’ representatives registered to address the Committee today.

A Member questioned whether the issue around rights of light to the adjoining site was a relevant planning consideration. Officers stated that this was a planning issue/material consideration in so far as the adjoining landowner had objected on the grounds of overlooking which was not felt to be a sustainable planning ground. However, it was noted that there was also a party wall issue to be resolved which was a civil matter.

A Member spoke again on the fact that the Still and Star was an asset of community value and, as such, was an important building which showed the social history of this part of the City. She noted that, in the addendum sent to Members yesterday, 4C Hotels would ensure that the name Still and Star would be retained but questioned whether the City Corporation ought to suggest a covenant to ensure that the reimagined Still and Star would remain in perpetuity on this site for as long as the building did given that they had recognised its historical importance. She questioned whether it was possible to condition this. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that, should the applicant wish to change the use of the Still and Star, they would require planning permission from the City Corporation. In addition, the Section 106 agreement would ensure the delivery of this, its continuation and the appropriate look and feel of the building, ensuring that this was not diluted in the future.

Another Member also spoke on the rights of light issue and asked whether Officers could provide further information on this and explain the matter in the context of this application. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director clarified that rights of light were not a planning matter but a civil matter between adjoining landowners and that this should not therefore be taken into consideration by the Committee when deciding upon this application. The impact of a development on an amenity such as overlooking and daylight/sunlight was, however, a material consideration and it was clarified that Officers did not consider that this proposal caused harm in these respects.

Members proceeded to debate the application.

A Member highlighted that Officers had stated in their presentation that CAMRA had objected to the original proposal which had involved the demolition of the Still and Star but had then supported the revised proposal which involved a replacement. What had not been mentioned, was that the Victorian Society had objected to both proposals. The Member suggested that the views of the Victorian Society should be given greater weight when the preservation of heritage was concerned. Secondly, the Member went on to question the precise application of the relevant planning policy. He highlighted that this proposal entailed the demolition of a 200 year old public house of a rare historical type which had recently been listed as an asset of community value in order to make way for the substantial expansion of an already substantial proposed office development. The Member commented that, on the face of it,

Page 11 this breached policy CV1 of the emerging City Plan 2036 which states that “special consideration should be given to the protection of cultural facilities that are unique to the City and maintain an historic or cultural association with the Square Mile, including public houses which have community value”. The Member commented that this pub fell squarely within this description. He reported that the policy continued by stating that “the City Corporation will resist the loss of existing visitor, arts, heritage and cultural facilities unless replacement facilities of at least equivalent quality are provided on site or within the vicinity which meets the needs of the City’s communities”. The recommendation to this Committee was that it did not resist the loss of this existing heritage facility in spite of its rarity and community value. This was justified within the report by saying that replacement facilities of at least equivalent quality are provided in the form of a “reimagined”, new pub with the same name in a location that is more convenient for the developer. The Member commented that a new building in a contemporary style was not a replacement of a 200-year-old building. He concluded by stating that this original pub was a small and rare piece of the City’s history which should not be sacrificed for an office development and yet more office space. When the application was assessed against the City’s relevant planning policy it should fail.

Another Member spoke to recognise that the Still and Star was an important part of this project but was by no means its only part. He added that the pub actually closed in October 2017 because it was unable to continue as a going concern. The objections received would indicate that the heritage site was more important than the pub as a business. The Member stated that he felt that the opportunity offered by the developer to give the pub more prominence on the high street and to make it an integral part of the new development would keep its heritage more alive than a disused, closed building in an undistinguished location. The Member also mentioned that the eastern City Business Improvement District strategy in place was also of relevance to this application and it should be borne in mind that there was a drive to see this part of the City improved with better facilities and he felt that this building would complement this approach.

A Member spoke in support of the application noting that he had also been involved in the 2007 and 2014 previously consented applications for this site. He described the proposals as a brilliant feat of engineering in an important location. He felt that the reimagining of the Still and Star in a more prominent location should be supported and he congratulated the architects for its inclusion in the scheme. He added that his only concern was that discussions had not yet taken place with Thames Water in terms of resource for the site.

Another Member spoke on the proposed preservation of the Still and Star which was, at present, a rather run-down building in a restricted access area. He was supportive of the reimagining of the pub which would be in a better location and larger than the existing premises, making it more commercially viable and therefore a real asset to the surrounding area and local community. He added that he felt that this application was the final piece in the jigsaw for this scheme and the redevelopment of this area which he intended to support.

Page 12

Another Member spoke to report that the Still and Star was once an incredibly popular pub until local businesses had left the area. She went on to state that the pub was an important part of the City’s community history and that the fact that the building may be unattractive on the outside did not devalue it in terms of historical interest. She expressed her disappointment that the building was not able to remain in situ. With regard to Harrow Alley, she commented that the City had taken an entirely different view with regard to Vine Street where they had asked that this be reinstated with the new walkway built from here to Tower Hill. She added that alleyways and passageways defined the City of London. Finally, she requested further information from Officers on the wind effect that this building would have on Aldgate High Street and Aldgate Square which was described as ‘sitting wind’. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director assured the Committee that the wind effects had been modelled intensely and confirmed that the proposals were in compliance with the wind guidelines. It was felt that the wind conditions here would be conducive for people to sit and dwell here outside of the public house.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them within the report. The vote was conducted by rollcall led by the Town Clerk with those Members present and eligible to vote asked to also confirm that they had been present for and able to hear the entirety of this item.

Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 24 Votes OPPOSED – 1 Vote There were 2 abstentions. One Member present was unable to vote due to technical issues which had led to her missing part of the debate.

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to:

(a) 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 issues until the Section 106 obligations have been executed; (b) That Members agree in principle that the land affected by the proposal which is currently public highway and land over which the public have right of access (between Aldgate and Little Somerset Street that would be built upon if the development was implemented) may be stopped up to enable the development to proceed and, upon receipt of the formal application, officers be instructed to proceed with arrangements for advertising and making of a Stopping-up Order for the various areas under the delegation arrangements approved by the Court of Common Council. (c) That Members agree to delegate authority to officers and the Comptroller and City Solicitor to declare new highway or city walkway

Page 13 through the development in accordance with the principal reservations, limitations and conditions set out in the report. (d) That Officers be delegated authority 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 1960.

5. BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES, COLECHURCH HOUSE, SE1 - PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE ELEVATED FOOTWAY The Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor regarding the proposed removal of the elevated footway at Colechurch House, SE1.

RESOLVED – That, acting collectively for the City as trustee of Bridge House Estates, and considering it to be in the best interests of the charity, the Committee:

i) Delegate authority to the City Surveyor to carry out the statutory consultation in accordance with section 32(3) of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1963 (as amended) with Network Rail, Transport for London and the London Borough of Southwark with regards to the proposed demolition of the elevated footway at Colechurch House; ii) Delegate authority to the City Surveyor in consultation with the Chairs of the Planning and Transportation Committee and Property Investment Board to review the responses to the consultation subject to reporting back to Committee in the event of any unresolved objections or issues; and iii) Subject to there being (i) no unresolved objections or issues in response to the statutory consultation (ii)planning permission being granted for the redevelopment of Colechurch House and removal of the elevated footway and (iii) the developer obtaining all consents necessary for the demolition of the elevated footway, to delegate authority to the City Surveyor to take all necessary steps (including the entering into of any necessary agreements) to enable the stopping up and demolition of the elevated footway to be carried out.

6. LONDON WALL CAR PARK - PARTIAL REPURPOSING FOR LAST MILE LOGISTICS HUB The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment recommending the repurposing of 39 spaces in London Wall Car Park for their use as a last mile logistics hub to be operated by Amazon Logistics.

A Member commented that she was aware that some residents used this Car Park and questioned whether this would still be possible should these proposals be approved. Officers assured the Member that this would still be possible as this arrangement would essentially use surplus capacity in the car park as there was no consistent, wider demand for these spaces at present.

RESOLVED – That Members agree to:

Page 14 • The repurposing of 39 spaces in London Wall Car Park for use as a last mile logistics hub, with the responsibility for the facility remaining with the Department of the Built Environment. • Lease the hub to Amazon Logistics subject to final agreement of the terms set out in the non-public appendix 1, with such terms to be agreed under delegated authority by the City Surveyor. • Approve the necessary enabling works subject to planning approvals, the cost of which would be covered by the operator.

7. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 2020 The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Local Development Scheme (LDS).

RESOLVED – That Members: • Approve the updated Local Development Scheme for publication; and • Resolve that the updated Local Development Scheme is to have effect from 15 December 2020.

8. THERMAL COMFORT GUIDELINES The Committee considered a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding Thermal Comfort Guidelines.

The Chair commended this work. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that this work merged together sunlight, wind, heat and humidity through the seasons to really understand how locations felt for those using that space, quantifying this and assessing applications in terms of their impact on users. Members were informed that this work was quite revolutionary globally and that Officers hoped to be able to further refine it in due course as more lessons were learned. It was not felt that this would be onerous on developers or applicants as it built upon the Microclimatic work that they were already required to do. Members were informed that representatives from RWDI were also present to respond to any questions.

A Member questioned whether the guidelines would have any legal standing or were simply advisory. Officers reported that the guidelines would be a planning advice note and not supplementary planning guidance. The Chair added that where he and the Deputy Chair were meeting applicants, they were emphasising the importance of these guidelines.

RESOLVED – That Members adopt the Guidelines as a Planning Advice Note.

9. REVIEW OF PILOT AND FUTURE BRIDGE HOUSE ESTATES FUNDING FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AGAINST ILLEGAL STREET TRADING ON AND BY THE BRIDGES The Committee considered a report of the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection providing details of the review of the 2 year pilot of a new approach to enforcement against illegal street traders by the City Corporation as local authority on the five Thames bridges owned by Bridge House Estates (BHE).

Page 15 A Member stated that he strongly supported this and made the point that the involvement of the City of London Police had made a huge difference to the success of this work and that it was therefore very important for this to continue.

RESOLVED – That, Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee: -

• Note the review of the effectiveness and outcomes of the two-year trial period of increased enforcement activity against illegal street trading on and around the five bridges owned, supported and maintained by Bridge House Estates. • Agree to support enhanced local authority street trading enforcement capability on and around the bridges for a further two year period (subject to annual review) with a view to supporting, safeguarding and preserving the bridges and to the protection of the general public who use the bridges,

10. GATEWAY 6 - OUTCOME REPORT - LONDON BRIDGE WATERPROOFING AND BEARINGS REPLACEMENT The Committee considered a Gateway 6 – Outcome Report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the London Bridge Waterproofing and Bearings Replacement work.

The Committee were informed that the Director of the Built Environment was immensely proud of the team involved in this work for completing the project early by immediately responding to the first national lockdown in March 2020 to find safe ways of working and keep the project running.

The Chair added the Committee’s thanks to Officers for completing this high- profile work successfully.

RESOLVED – That the Committee: • Approve the closure of the project, providing the final account is agreed within £2,626,000 • Delegate authority to the Chief Officer to agree a settlement of disputed items, if this becomes necessary, • Delegate authority to the Chief Officer to use released but unspent CRP allocation (up to £61,000) to settle, if this becomes necessary.

11. TRANSPORT STRATEGY UPDATE: QUARTER 2 2020/21 The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment updating Members on progress with delivering the City of London Transport Strategy for Quarter 2 of 2020/21 (July-September 2020).

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

12. 2020/21 BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE Q2 The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment setting out progress made during Q2 of the 2020/21 Departmental Business Plan.

Page 16

RESOLVED – That Members note the report and appendices.

13. DEPARTMENT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT RISK MANAGEMENT - QUARTERLY REPORT The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment providing Members with assurance that risk management procedures in place within the Department of the Built Environment are satisfactory and that they meet the requirements of the corporate Risk Management Framework.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report and the actions taken in the Department of the Built Environment to monitor and manage effectively risks arising from the department’s operations.

14. PUBLIC MINUTES OF THE STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB-COMMITTEE The Committee received the public minutes of the Streets and Walkways Sub- Committee held virtually on 15 October 2020.

RECEIVED.

15. OUTSTANDING ACTIONS The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk detailing the Committee’s outstanding actions.

RECEIVED.

16. PUBLIC LIFT REPORT The Committee received a public lift report of the City Surveyor for the period 29/10/2020 – 25/11/2020.

Officers reported that Blackfriars lift was nearing repair after having overcome some issues with the doors. However, there were now issues with the lift controller with Officers waiting on lead times now for its replacement. A Member expressed concern at the fact that this was a relatively new lift yet seemed to be particularly problematic and questioned the reasons behind this. Officers reported that a previous lift failure had resulted in the fire service attending and forcing the doors to free someone trapped inside and further safety measures to prevent the need to force the doors open in the event of future entrapments were now being looked at with new doors to be fitted in due course.

Members were informed that there were some issues with vandalism to the Inclinator with the doors being forced. Officers had discussed the matter with the lift contractor who would now be attending every morning and evening to ensure that the Inclinator was back in service. Further measures such as the installation of CCTV were also now under consideration.

A Member commented that a new lift had been installed in London Street as part of the 17 Mount Lane planning application. She questioned whether this was anything to do with the City Corporation and reported that she had recently

Page 17 had to help free someone trapped inside. She reported that there had been issues with the door mechanism and asked that this be fed back to the building owner. Officers undertook to make further enquiries on this.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

17. DELEGATED DECISIONS OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director or those so authorised under their delegated powers since the report to the last meeting.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

18. VALID PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The Committee received a report of the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director providing Members with a list detailing development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since the report to the last meeting.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director highlighted that the Department was currently busier than ever with November 2020 statistics depicting that applications were higher now than pre-lockdown in March 2020. He therefore forewarned Members that a number of major, ambitious schemes would be put to the Committee in the next six months and reported that the department had been resourced to be able to withstand this amount of work and move things forward as quickly as possible.

A Member requested that, where there were major applications to be considered, these were considered at separate, dedicated meetings so that they were able to be adequately deliberated.

The Town Clerk reported that additional meeting dates were currently being identified for the first quarter of 2021 for this purpose.

Another Member spoke to suggest that no more than one substantial planning application should be put on an agenda for each meeting. The Chair agreed with this point.

Another Member suggested that fortnightly meeting dates, set in advance, could also be helpful. The Chair highlighted that similar comments were now being received from all parties and that he and the Deputy Chair were assuming that Members would be amenable to this. He commented that agenda plans were being drawn up on the assumption that just one application per meeting would be considered and that, as such, it was clear that additional meetings would be required in 2021 which Members would be notified of as soon as possible.

Page 18

The Deputy Chair added that reports on applications and Officer presentations should always be as thorough as possible with papers circulated to all in advance. He added that fortnightly meetings could prove difficult for working Members.

Another Member added that site visits or virtual site visits should also always be provided wherever possible. The Chair stated that he had never refused the request from any party for a site visit and agreed that these were helpful, particularly if they could be delivered virtual in the current circumstances. He added that briefings were also sometimes organised by the applicant as per the Planning Protocol.

A Member picked up on the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director’s comment about his team being properly resourced to deal with forthcoming applications and questioned whether, given the ongoing effects of COVID-19, there had been any notable time delays or ‘congestion’ in terms of the processing of development applications. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the Department had recently lost a number of experienced Planning Officers. He confirmed that a period of successful recruitment had followed this and that he was of the view that the Department were now in a strong position resources wise. He did not, therefore, believe that any schemes had been compromised in terms of timescales but undertook to keep this matter under review.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

19. PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk advising Members of action taken by the Town Clerk since their last meeting in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman and in accordance with Standing Order Nos 41(a) and 41(b).

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.

20. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE Staffing – Transport Officers A Member noted that a number of Transport Planning Officers had left the organisation recently and sought some assurance that the Department were still adequately resourced from this perspective. The Member added that she wanted to record her thanks to those who had left for all of their hard work. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that the Department were devising a new way of working where work was now increasingly carried out across teams as opposed to in siloes and stated that he was confident that the resources were in place to cover this work. The Committee were informed that some members of the Strategic Transportation Team were also soon set to depart and that resources would be managed across the section to cover these roles given that there was an organisation-

Page 19 wide recruitment freeze in force at present. It was therefore not envisaged that there would be any significant impact on resources.

Virtual Reality (VR) Square Mile A Member reported that he had attended a very interesting webinar on this subject in recent months which had also been attended by the Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director and had featured ‘the most advanced, fully interactive, virtual reality model ever created of a major City’, sponsored by the City of London. He therefore questioned whether any of this technology which had been developed so successfully could be used to help the Committee understand the context of some of the forthcoming applications. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director stated that he would be happy to present the technology to the Committee at a future training session. He added that VR technology required the use of a headset but that the aim was for this to become an established tool, not just for Members but also for the general public to better understand the impact of a proposal. Further work was also being undertaken to allow people to better understand and visualise the pedestrian flows and thermal comfort/wind impacts of developments.

Museum of London Progress A Member questioned the progress made on the permission granted by this Committee in Summer 2020 noting that no decision notice had yet been issued. The Interim Chief Planning Officer and Development Director reported that his had not been issued as the Section 106 agreement had not yet been entered into as the Museum of London were yet to take an interest in the site which would then enable them to enter into the planning obligation and to the agreement. Negotiations on the lease to the Museum were continuing.

Governance Review pertaining to the Planning and Transportation Committee A Member reported that recent discussions on the Planning Protocol at the Policy and Resources Committee had led to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee undertaking to consider the Lord Lisvane recommendations pertaining to the Planning and Transportation Committee in early 2021 with any changes being put in place for the new civic year in April 2021.

A Member, also Deputy Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee, confirmed that this was the case and that he would be bringing forward the consideration of the Lord Lisvane recommendations around this Committee. He added that consultation dates for January 2021 had now been agreed and that Members would be notified of these later this week. Any recommendations arising from these sessions would be taken to the Resource Allocation Sub Committee, the Planning and Transportation Committee and, ultimately, the Court of Common Council to a timescale that envisaged the Corporation being able to implement any changes agreed by the beginning of the new municipal year.

Page 20 The Chair added that he and the Deputy Chairman were very keen to see this work undertaken. He added, however, that this was not about a review of the Planning Protocol but a review of the Lisvane recommendations and stated that the Protocol had already been reviewed by this Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee. He noted that there may, however, be an overlap of issues in terms of the governance of this Committee.

21. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration.

22. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Item No(s) Paragraph No(s) 23 3, 5 & 7 24-25 3 26-27 -

23. DEBT ARREARS - BUILT ENVIRONMENT (P&T COMMITTEE) PERIOD ENDING 30TH SEPTEMBER 2020 The Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment informing Members of arrears of invoiced income as at 30th September 2020.

24. NON-PUBLIC APPENDIX 1 TO AGENDA ITEM 6 - LONDON WALL CAR PARK - PARTIAL REPURPOSING FOR LAST MILE LOGISTICS HUB The Committee received a non-public appendix which was considered in conjunction with Item 6.

25. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES OF THE STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB- COMMITTEE The Committee received the non-public minutes of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee meeting held virtually on 15 October 2020.

26. NON-PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE A Member raised a question regarding the Beech Street Judgement.

27. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration in the non- public session.

The meeting closed at 12.30pm

Page 21

Chairman

Contact Officer: Gemma Stokley tel. no.: 020 7332 3414 [email protected]

Page 22 Agenda Item 4

Committee: Date:

Planning and Transportation 5 January 2021

Subject: Public 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation.

Ward: Bishopsgate For Decision

Registered No: 19/01359/FULL Registered on: 23 December 2019

Conservation Area: Bishopsgate Listed Building: No

Summary

The planning application relates to 186-190 Bishopsgate, located towards the northern end of Bishopsgate, on the corner with Victoria Avenue, and occupied as retail at lower ground, ground and first floor level with 19 residential units at 2nd to 6th floors above. The site is included in the Bishopsgate Conservation Area and the Liverpool Street Primary Shopping Centre. Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the basement, ground and first floor to a restaurant and associated external plant. The permitted use of the ground floor is Class A1 and was previously occupied as a jewellers and subsequently by Wasabi as a cold food take-away. More recently it appears that Wasabi has expanded its activities to include eating on the premises and hot food take-away which takes the use out of Class A1 (shop) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order. This use is not authorised. In order to deal with kitchen ventilation extract associated with the proposed restaurant use effectively, and having regard to residential amenity, high level extract up to roof level is required. Internal routes for this have been explored but have not proved feasible. Consequently an external extract duct from first floor to roof level is proposed on the south elevation of the building facing onto Victoria Avenue. Victoria Avenue is not public highway. Seven objections have been received: six from residents of the building objecting to noise disturbance during building works and operation of the

Page 23 restaurant; nuisance caused by food odours; hot air extract to Victoria Avenue; opening hours; damaging impact on the appearance of the building and the value of the property. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee does not object to the change of use but objects to the external flue as being damaging to the building and unacceptable in a Conservation Area. While the existing percentage of Class A1 units in the PSC frontage is below the Local Plan aim of 70%, the mix of retail units in the immediate frontage accords with the Local Plan and the proposed use is considered to be appropriate to its location in the PSC, providing a positive contribution to facilities in the area. While the planning application originally proposed low level (first floor) extract into Victoria Avenue, the application has been amended to provide an extract route to roof level, in order to avoid the potential of noise and odour nuisance to the area in general and to the occupiers of the residential flats in particular. Planning conditions and the submitted Management Plan would also effectively control potential sources of nuisance. The proposed external duct would detract from the appearance of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Options to visually integrate it better with the building would only serve to make it more bulky or are structurally unfeasible. Significant weight has been given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The duct is not in a prominent location in the Conservation Area and it is considered that the proposal would result in a limited degree of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area. Recognising the weight to be given to any harm, overall it is considered that the proposals, while seeking to protect residential amenity, achieve a use for the retail unit which would contribute positively to the vibrancy and activity of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area.

Recommendation That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule.

Page 24 Page 25 Page 26

Page 27 Main Report

Site 1. 186-190 Bishopsgate is located on the east side of Bishopsgate at the corner with Victoria Avenue. It is situated in the Bishopsgate Conservation Area and is included in the Liverpool Street Principal Shopping Centre. The building comprises 8 storeys including ground and basement and its permitted use is as Class A1 retail at basement, ground and first floor level with 19 self-contained residential flats at 2nd to 6th floor levels above.

Relevant Planning History 2. The retail unit at basement, ground and first floor level has been occupied by Wasabi since 2012. In 2012 it became evident that although a large part of the business consisted of cold food take away (Class A1), there was also a significant element of hot food being sold and there was an extensive area of tables and seating at first floor level for eating on the premises. The City determined that the mix of uses took the activity out of the lawful Class A1 retail use to a mixed use of Class A1(shop), A3(restaurant/cafe) and A5 (hot food take-away) which is a sui generis use. The use was therefore unauthorised. 3. Associated with the use, an extract duct was installed discharging to a flat roof area at the rear of the 4th floor level providing extract from the basement kitchen. These works were also unauthorised. 4. The unauthorised use and works gave rise to issues of noise and odour problems for the residents in the building, during the period of building works and from cooking smells and mechanical plant noise. 5. In October 2012, following intervention by City of London planning officers and environmental health officers, Wasabi ceased those unauthorised operations which took the planning use out of Class A1 and operated as a Class A1 unit (cold food take-away with some limited seating on the ground floor.) This was monitored by the City’s enforcement team. 6. A planning application was submitted for the change of use from Class A1 to a mixed use of hot and cold food take-away and restaurant/cafι for eating on the premises. Outstanding matters in the application, mainly relating to waste storage for the residents and the retail unit were unresolved and the planning application was not determined. 7. At the end of 2019, at the time that the present planning application was submitted, it became evident that Wasabi had begun using the premises to provide eating on the premises and hot food. Although the extent of this activity in relation to the continuation of cold food take-away is not known, or whether a primary use continued, it is likely that the use comprised a mix of hot and cold food take-away together with eating on the premises which would be sui generis. It is not known on which date this potentially unauthorised use of the premises began.

Page 28 Proposals 8. The present planning application is for the change of use of the basement, ground and first floor levels from Class A1 to a Class A3 restaurant with external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and external extract duct to the side elevation, facing onto Victoria Avenue. 9. As the planning application was submitted prior to 1 September 2020, the transitional arrangements under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 allows for the application to be considered under the previous use classes. 10. The ground floor would comprise an open kitchen and seating for 25 covers; the first floor would provide covers for 104 customers and customer WCs. The basement would provide ancillary space including storage and staff facilities. 11. The external alterations proposed to the south elevation facing onto Victoria Avenue include: • A full height external kitchen extract duct routed up the south elevation of the building facing onto Victoria Avenue, from first floor level to roof level; • a supply intake louvre measuring 1.96m width by 1m height at first floor level, installed in the brick cladding close to the corner of the building at Bishopsgate/Victoria Avenue; • a small general extract louvre in the upper part of an existing window at first floor level • The re-use of existing louvres on the east facing short return wall in Victoria Avenue for intake and extract.

12. The planning application as first submitted proposed a low level (first floor) external extract louvre which provided kitchen extract. This application was advertised and consulted upon. 13. For reasons outlined further below, this proposal raised serious concerns regarding potential noise and odour nuisance. 14. In order to address these concerns a revised proposal has been submitted which replaces the proposed low-level extract louvre with a full height external extract duct to roof level. 15. The revised proposal has been advertised and consulted upon.

Consultations: 16. The planning application was advertised on site and in the local newspaper and the residents of the upper floors were consulted by letter. Copies of the representations are attached to this report Initial Proposal (with low level extract louvre): 17. Three objections were received, two from current occupiers of the upper floors and one from a previous occupier. The grounds of objection relate

Page 29 to disruption caused by building works, the use of the unit for food and problems of noise and odour. 18. Thames Water do not object to the proposal but have provided advice which would be included as an Informative if planning permission were to be granted. 19. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee raised no objections to the application. 20. The requirements of the Waste Amenity Manager have been met. 21. Environmental Health Officers raised an objection to the application, advising against a recommendation for approval, based on the proposed low-level extract arrangements (amplified later in this report).

Revised Proposal (kitchen extract contained in full height duct to roof):

22. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee has raised an objection to the application as follows: “There were no objections to the change of use, but the Committee strongly objected to the proposed aluminium flue which was damaging to the building and unacceptable in a Conservation Area.”

23. Two objections have been received from occupiers of the upper floors (different respondents from those above.) The grounds of objection are nuisance caused by food odours and noise, long opening hours, noise from deliveries, disruption from building works, devaluation of property and damaging to the appearance of the building. 24. One further representation has been received from a resident who is part of the 186-190 Bishopsgate Residents’ Association – objecting to Wasabi’s current operations causing disturbance and objecting to louvred extract to Victoria Avenue. 25. The revised proposals for a roof level extract would meet this objection and proposed conditions would mitigate against the other areas of concern raised. 26. Environmental Health have raised no objection to the revised proposals subject to conditions being imposed to ensure that residential amenity and the amenity of the surrounding area is protected. These are included in the attached schedule.

Policy Context 27. The development plan consists of the London Plan and the City of London Local Plan. The Mayor of London and the City of London have prepared draft plans which are material considerations to be taken into account in the determination of the applications. 28. The Draft London Plan is at an advanced stage. It takes forward many of the policy positions of the existing plan whilst strengthening and adding to others. On the 13th March 2020 the Secretary of State directed the

Page 30 Mayor not to adopt the Plan due to it not addressing a number of national policies in respect of housing ambition, small sites, industrial land and aviation, meaning it will be some time before the plan is adopted. It has passed through the Examination in Public so is to be afforded some weight with the matters addressed by the Secretary of State being less relevant to this site. 29. The draft City Plan 2036 was agreed by the Court of Common Council in May 2020 for pre-submission, Regulation 19, consultation. The Plan is therefore a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Regulation 19 consultation has been paused until early 2021 to enable the City Corporation to update policies in light of changes to the Use Class Order. These changes have been agreed by the Planning & Transportation and Policy & Resources Committee and will be considered by Court of Common Council in January 2021. However, the fundamental principles in relation to this application remain unchanged. 30. The London Plan and Local Plan policies that are most relevant to the consideration of this case are set out in Appendix A to this report. 31. Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) February 2019.Chapter 16 of the NPPF relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. 32. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF advises that Local Planning Authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 33. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF advises, “In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” 34. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF advises “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. 35. Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or

Page 31 destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification 36. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.” When carrying out the balancing exercise in a case where there is harm to the significance of a conservation area, considerable importance and weight should be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. 37. On 1st September 2020 a further amendment was made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020. For applications made prior to the 1st September 2020, as is the case in this instance, the order makes provision for those applications to be considered against the regulations that were applicable prior to the amendment coming into force.

Considerations 38. The Corporation, in determining the planning application has the following main statutory duties to perform:- • to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. (Section 70 Town & Country Planning Act 1990); • to determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). • To pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area. (S 72(1) Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990);

39. The principal issues in considering this application are: • The extent to which the proposals comply with Government policy advice (NPPF). • The extent to which the proposals comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. • The impact of the proposal on residential amenity. • The impact of the proposal on the Bishopsgate Conservation Area.

Land Use: 40. The property is located near the northern edge of the Liverpool Street Principal Shopping Centre (PSC), the extent of which is shown on the location plan attached to this report. 41. It is in a frontage which is separated from other retail units to the south by Victoria Avenue and the City of London Police Station. There are 5 units in this section of frontage north of Victoria Avenue: the application

Page 32 premises, two Class A1 units, the entrance to a betting shop (sui generis) basement unit and a Class A4 public house. 42. The retail unit measures 807 sq. m. of floorspace over three floors (basement, ground and first floor) and has a frontage of 9.6m along Bishopsgate (with a secondary frontage along Victoria Avenue). 43. Policy CS20 and draft City Plan Strategic Policy S5 aims to improve the quantity and quality of retailing and the retail environment in the City, promoting the development of the Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs) and the linkages between them to ensure that they become attractive shopping destinations. Priority will be given to shops (Class A1) within the PSCs with other retail uses being directed to the peripheries of the centres and the retail links. 44. Policy DM 20.1 seeks to maintain a predominance of A1 units within the Principal Shopping Centre. This is achieved by not allowing changes of use which would result in more than 2 in 5 consecutive units being neither A1 nor A2 deposit taker and maintaining at least 70% of the frontage in the PSC as A1. 45. Draft City Plan policy RE1 seeks to retain the concentrations of A1 shopping in PSCs. 46. Further criteria in determining the acceptability of the proposal in a PSC is an assessment of the contribution the unit makes to the function and character of the PSC and the effect of the proposal in terms of the size of the unit, the length of its frontage, the composition and distribution of retail uses within the frontage and the location of the unit within the frontage 47. The percentage of A1 frontage for Liverpool Street is currently 66% of the total units, 53% of the total floorspace and 68% of the total frontage. These figures fall below the 70% threshold as set out above but partly reflect the large number of sites containing retail that are currently under construction or pending redevelopment in the PSC, such as 100 Liverpool Street, Liverpool Street Arcade,150 Bishopsgate. On completion of these schemes the figures will be considerably enhanced. 48. The retail unit, due to its prominent corner position in this part of the PSC and close to the entrance to Liverpool Street Station makes a significant contribution to the PSC. If the proposal were to be allowed the immediate frontage would retain a mix of retail units, including shops, in accordance with policy. While the Class A1 percentages are currently below 70% for the PSC as a whole, this is partly due to the number of vacant or under construction sites. The proposed use of the unit as a restaurant use would be a retail use which provides beneficial local facilities for the City’s workforce, residents and visitors and would contribute to vitality at street level in this area. In land use policy terms there would be no objection to the change of use from Class A1 use to Class A3.

Page 33 Impact on Amenity 49. Local Plan Policy DM3.5 (Night-time entertainment) and Draft Local Plan Policy CV4 (Evening and Night-Time Economy) sets out that any proposals for new night-time entertainment and related uses will only be permitted where there is no unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents or on environmental amenity, taking into account the potential for noise, disturbance and odours from the operation of the premises, customers arriving and leaving the premises and the servicing of the premises. 50. Policy DM21.3 (Residential Environment) and draft City Plan policy HS3 states that noise-generating uses should be sited away from residential uses, where possible, and that adequate noise mitigation measures must be provided and, where required, planning conditions will be imposed to protect residential amenity. 51. A Customer Management Plan has been submitted to accompany the planning application outlining the management measures to be taken to avoid disturbance caused by users of the premises to residents and the area generally. The proposed opening hours of the restaurant would be Monday-Sunday 10.00 hrs to 23.00hrs which is consistent with our standard hours controlled by planning condition. 52. A Servicing Management Plan outlines that deliveries will be consolidated, ensuring cost, traffic and environmental efficiencies and predicts that there would be 3-5 deliveries per week. 53. Detailed discussions have taken place between City officers and the applicants regarding an appropriate method of kitchen extract for the proposed unit. Serious concerns were raised by Environmental Health Officers (Pollution Control) regarding the original proposals for low level extract, particularly given the proximity of residential units with opening windows. 54. A wide range of alternatives have been explored by the applicants and City officers. These have included technical controls over noise and odour by high efficiency ventilation equipment, and alternative routes through the interior of the building for a duct up to roof level. Unfortunately an internal route has not proved possible (outlined in design section below); in order to comply with the Environmental Health requirements in this respect, it is proposed that the extract of fumes from the kitchen will be routed externally in the proposed new duct to roof level in order to avoid any odour nuisance to the residential units in the building. This represents an improvement over the existing conditions. 55. Environmental Health Officers have a recommended a number of conditions relating to control over environmental effects during demolition and construction, acoustic treatment, control of noise and odour nuisance from mechanical plant, disturbance caused by music, hours of servicing. 56. The Site is in a busy and lively area of the City, where different uses intermingle and contribute to a vibrant and dynamic City. The proposed restaurant use would not be out of character in this location and it is

Page 34 considered that the potential impact on the residential amenity of the flats in the building can be successfully controlled by the imposition of relevant conditions. The applicant has reviewed and agreed the proposed conditions and the implementation of an on-going review of the Management Plan. 57. The measures put in place would address the concerns expressed by occupiers of the building in relation to any adverse impact on residential amenity. Existing building and contribution to the character and appearance of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area

58. NPPF paragraph 190 requires Local Authorities to assess and identify the particular significance of a heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal. In this case this is the Bishopsgate Conservation Area and the contribution 186-190 Bishopsgate makes to the Conservation Area’s character and appearance. 59. 186 Bishopsgate was designed by de Metz and Birks and is a standard curtain walling construction completed in 1957. The Bishopsgate Conservation Area Appraisal (BCAA) describes the block as “…appropriate to its context with a narrow elevation clad in an early example of curtain walling above a sympathetic recent shopfront with an attractive well-proportioned fascia. However the dark brown glazing and grid arrangement of the facade fail to relate to its context and the character of the conservation area. “ 60. The building together with Bishopsgate Police Station to the south bookends the entrance to Victoria Avenue, a long rectangular enclosed courtyard which does not have through access but it provides access to commercial entrances at the rear. Victoria Avenue is typical of the network of side roads that lead off from the northern end of Bishopsgate. 61. The unexceptional and somewhat utilitarian flank and plain elevations of the application site and the Police Building enclose the entrance into the courtyard and the view into Victoria Avenue and are not considered of high townscape quality or identified as an important local view in the BCAA. The flank elevation of the application site comprises brickwork, stone banding, curtain walling and render with a service door for restaurant use. It has a somewhat back of house character. 62. The existing building including front facade, flank and rear elevations are of very limited architectural value and the contribution to the wider heritage significance of the Conservation Area is as an indistinctive background building. The building and functions reflect some of the criteria of the wider conservation area townscape including scale, active vibrant uses at ground floor, following an existing historic building line and the corner location which bookends a narrow alleyway, a typical feature of the Conservation Area.

Page 35 Design proposals and impact on the Conservation Area 63. This is a diverse and lively part of the Conservation Area comprising a variety of different retail units, places to eat and drink; this is intrinsic to the historic and evolving context and there is no objection to the change of use and the impact of that use on the conservation area. 64. The proposed change of use requires an external flue to address extract issues and to ensure there is no harmful impact to surrounding residents. The NPPF para 194 states that where harm occurs to the significance of a designated heritage asset this requires clear and convincing justification. The Chapman Taylor Ventilation Report explored a range of service run options to try and conceal the duct route to minimise visual impact in the Conservation Area. 65. These alternatives included reusing the existing Wasabi duct but this was established to be inadequate for the change of use ventilation requirements and is not easily accessible for maintenance and cleaning. The property is land locked at its lower levels and therefore there is no rear elevation at the restaurant level to route the flue. 66. In addition the property has the complexity of being occupied as residential on the upper floors. Due to the interior plan layout including location of habitable rooms and insufficient additional space in stair cores or plant space to accommodate a duct, an internal service route is not feasible. Due to the layout and functions of the building, location of residential windows and duct specification, the Chapman Taylor Ventilation Report concluded that the proposed location on a publicly visible flank elevation rising from first floor to roof level was the only viable option which would meet business operational requirements and protect residential amenity. 67. The extent of the duct and the proposed location would introduce visual clutter and attaching great weight to the significance of the Conservation Area this impact would result in a degree of harm. Local Plan policy DM 10.1 and draft City Plan Strategic Policy S8 and DE2 states plant and building services equipment should be integrated into the design of the building and fully screened from view. Installations that would adversely affect the character and appearance or amenities of the buildings or area will be resisted. The CAAC strongly objects to the aluminium flue as it is damaging to the building and unacceptable in a conservation area. Local Plan Policy DM12.1 and draft City Plan Policy HE1 requires development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 68. The proposed duct would not be discreet or concealed and therefore would not meet the requirements of the above policies. However the visual impact and the harm has been minimised by setting the duct route back from the busy Bishopsgate thoroughfare and locating the duct on a utilitarian flank elevation which is less sensitive to change. The flank elevation includes a service door, an inactive glazed shopfront, internal glazed residential staircase, residential windows and areas of brickwork and render as well as louvres.

Page 36 69. The proposed duct has been designed to be as compact as possible and comprises rectangular flat sections 800mm(w) x 350mm(d) with front access panels and would project from the wall by 430mm. The duct would rise from first floor to the full height of the building and be painted the same matte finish colour as the background render to reduce visual impact avoiding a reflective aluminium finish. The duct would run up a plain rendered part of the elevation and due to the cambered alignment of the flank elevation when passing along Bishopsgate, the visual impact would be limited, and if glimpsed this would be momentary and transient. However upon entering into Victoria Avenue, the service duct would be visually prominent and somewhat unsightly. Various options have been considered for treating the duct including cladding and urban greening but these have been dismissed due to the necessary maintenance and the resulting increased bulk of the structure, exaggerating its visual impact. 70. The NPPF para 193 requires in considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset that great weight should be given to conserving an asset which in this case is the Bishopsgate Conservation Area. The existing building has been evaluated as one which makes a very limited contribution to the significance of the wider Conservation Area and therefore is less sensitive to change. The flank elevation is utilitarian and secondary in nature and has limited visibility in the townscape. A clear and convincing case has been set out to support the duct location and efforts have been made to minimise the visual impact. The harmful visual clutter would result in an impact which would be very localised, momentary and contained. It is therefore deemed to be less than substantial harm and very much on the lower spectrum of harm. There would not be overall harm to the wider character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 71. The additional inclusion of intake vents on the flank elevation are considered to have an impact that would not be harmful as they are integrated into the building elevation and would not be visually prominent. 72. NPPF Para 196 requires that when any less than substantial harm arises from a development to a designated heritage asset that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits stemming from the proposals. In carrying out this balancing exercise considerable importance and weight has been given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area. It is concluded the duct would introduce visual clutter on the public elevation of an undistinguished building in the Conservation Area. The resulting visual harm is recognised and would be undesirable however it is concluded to be relatively minor and localised. Turning to the public benefits in this case these are identified as: i. the introduction of an extraction system which would improve the current arrangement for residents: ii. the protection of the environmental conditions in the vicinity;

Page 37 iii. supporting the operation of a use which would contribute to the vibrancy and activity of this part of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area.

73. On balance it is considered the minor less than substantial harm to the Bishopsgate Conservation Area would be outweighed by these public benefits. Access 74. There is no lift access between the ground and first floors in the retail unit. The existing lift in the building serves the residential floors. An accessible WC is provided at ground level, together with suitably designed inclusive restaurant facilities in accordance with Local Plan Policy 10.8. Waste 75. An independent waste storage room would be provided in the retail unit at ground level and meets the requirements of the Waste Amenity Manager. The existing separate waste storage facility for the residents and access to it is retained as existing and is not impacted by the proposal. The proposals accord with Policy DM17.1. Projection over Footway 76. The proposed extract duct and supports would project over Victoria Avenue by 0.43m from the face of the building. Victoria Avenue is not a public highway. The height of the lowest part of the duct would be 5.35m above the pavement. In the case of public highway, oversails of this nature are acceptable at a projecting height of between 5.3m and 5.7m if they are built to withstand vehicle impact. In the case of this proposal, as Victoria Avenue is not public highway, the applicant is not required to meet our usual public highway standards. If the height of the duct above the pavement were to be raised it would interfere with a residential window at second floor level.

Conclusions 77. The proposed change of use to restaurant is considered acceptable, retaining a mix of retail types in the immediate frontage, albeit that the overall Class A1 percentages in the PSC are below 70% at the present time. The proposed use is appropriate to its location in Bishopsgate, close to Liverpool Station and contributes to the vibrancy of the area and the facilities for City workers, visitors and residents. 78. In order to ensure that the proposed use does not detrimentally impact on residential amenity, conditions are attached controlling building works, opening hours, and nuisances from noise and odour. A reviewable Management Plan has been submitted. 79. It is acknowledged that the proposed extract duct would not be successfully integrated with the appearance of the building and as such would be contrary to policies of the Local Plan and draft City Plan,

Page 38 causing a limited degree of less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 80. Significant weight has been given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Having assessed the impact of the proposal, and recognising the weight to be given to any harm, overall it is considered that the proposals, while seeking to protect residential amenity, achieve a use for the retail unit which would contribute positively to the vibrancy and activity of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area and can be recommended for approval.

Page 39 Background Papers

Planning and Heritage Statement 23.12.2020 Servicing Management Plan February 2020 UV=C Range specification VMP FGUK Leicester Meridian Brochure ESP Technical Sheet 07.10.16_V3, CVEQ Brochure (Final 225.07 (2)); DCVK Brochure; CAA Brochure E-mail 25.02.2020, 14.05.2020, First Plan Memos 31.03.2020, 10.11.2020 and 08.12.2020 Department of Markets and Consumer Protection Consultee Comment 27.01.2020 Thames Water Objection comment 22.01.2020 Mr Rico Li Objection comment 22.11.2020 Ms Zoe Wu Objection comment 01.02.2020 Mr Shuaib Qayum Objection comment 29.11.2020 Miss L Katabi Objection comment 30.11.2020 Mrs E Beckett Letters 26.02.2020 and 18.11.2020 CAAC Objection comment 02.12.2020 L Martins

Page 40 Appendix A London Plan Policies The London Plan policies which are most relevant to this application are set our below: Policy 2.15 Sustain and enhance vitality of town centre. Policy 4.8 Support a successful, competitive and diverse retail sector which promotes sustainable access to the goods and services that Londoners need and the broader objectives of the spatial structure of this Plan, especially town centres. Policy 7.2 All new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Policy 7.6 Buildings and structures should: a be of the highest architectural quality b be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm c comprise details and materials that complement, not necessarily replicate, the local architectural character d not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. This is particularly important for tall buildings g be adaptable to different activities and land uses, particularly at ground level h meet the principles of inclusive design i optimise the potential of sites. Policy 7.8 Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, conserve the significance of heritage assets and their settings and make provision for the protection of archaeological resources, landscapes and significant memorials. Policy 7.15 Minimise existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals and separate new noise sensitive development from major noise sources.

Relevant Draft Intend to Publish London Plan Policies Policy GG1 Seeks good growth that builds on openness, diversity and equality.

Policy GG5 Seeks to conserve and enhance London’s global economic competitiveness. Development must fulfil a range of criteria including

Page 41 promoting and supporting London’s rich heritage and cultural assets.

Policy SD4 The unique international, national and London-wide roles of the CAZ based on an agglomeration and rich mix of strategic functions and local uses, should be promoted and enhanced. The distinct environment and heritage of the CAZ should be sustained and enhanced. Measures should be taken to improve air quality in the CAZ. The unique concentration and diversity of cultural, arts, entertainment, night-time economy and tourism facilities should be promoted and enhanced.

Policy D3 All development must make the best use of land by following a design led approach that optimises the capacity of sites. Development proposals should address form and layout, experience and quality and character.

Policy D4 The design quality of development should be maintained by ensuring maximum detail appropriate for design stage, ensuring the wording of planning permission, associated conditions and legal agreements provide clarity regarding the quality of design and avoid considering large elements of design by condition. Consideration should be given to conditioning the ongoing involvement of the original design team to monitor the design quality of development through to completion.

Policy D5 Development proposals should achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design.

Policy HC1 Development proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. Development proposals should avoid harm. Development proposals should identify assets of archaeological significance and use this information to avoid harm or minimise it through design and appropriate mitigation.

Relevant Draft City Plan 2036 Policies HL3 Noise and Light Pollution

Page 42 HS3 Residential Environment S5 Retailing RE1 Principal Shopping Centres CV4 Evening and Night-time Economy S8 Design DE1 Sustainability Standards DE2 New Development S11 Historic Environment HC1 Managing Change to Heritage Assets

Relevant Local Plan Policies

CS10 Promote high quality environment

To promote a high standard and sustainable design of buildings, streets and spaces, having regard to their surroundings and the character of the City and creating an inclusive and attractive environment.

CS12 Conserve or enhance heritage assets

To conserve or enhance the significance of the City's heritage assets and their settings, and provide an attractive environment for the City's communities and visitors.

CS15 Creation of sustainable development

To enable City businesses and residents to make sustainable choices in their daily activities creating a more sustainable City, adapted to the changing climate.

CS20 Improve retail facilities

To improve the quantity and quality of retailing and the retail environment, promoting the development of the five Principal Shopping Centres and the linkages between them.

CS21 Protect and provide housing

To protect existing housing and amenity and provide additional housing in the City, concentrated in or near identified residential areas, as shown in Figure X, to meet the City's needs, securing suitable, accessible and affordable housing and supported housing.

Page 43 DM10.1 New development

To require all developments, including alterations and extensions to existing buildings, to be of a high standard of design and to avoid harm to the townscape and public realm, by ensuring that:

a) the bulk and massing of schemes are appropriate in relation to their surroundings and have due regard to the general scale, height, building lines, character, historic interest and significance, urban grain and materials of the locality and relate well to the character of streets, squares, lanes, alleys and passageways; b) all development is of a high standard of design and architectural detail with elevations that have an appropriate depth and quality of modelling; c) appropriate, high quality and durable materials are used; d) the design and materials avoid unacceptable wind impacts at street level or intrusive solar glare impacts on the surrounding townscape and public realm; e) development has attractive and visually interesting street level elevations, providing active frontages wherever possible to maintain or enhance the vitality of the City's streets; f) the design of the roof is visually integrated into the overall design of the building when seen from both street level views and higher level viewpoints; g) plant and building services equipment are fully screened from view and integrated in to the design of the building. Installations that would adversely affect the character, appearance or amenities of the buildings or area will be resisted; h) servicing entrances are designed to minimise their effects on the appearance of the building and street scene and are fully integrated into the building's design; i) there is provision of appropriate hard and soft landscaping, including appropriate boundary treatments; j) the external illumination of buildings is carefully designed to ensure visual sensitivity, minimal energy use and light pollution, and the discreet integration of light fittings into the building design; k) there is provision of amenity space, where appropriate; l) there is the highest standard of accessible and inclusive design.

DM12.2 Development in conservation areas

1. Development in conservation areas will only be permitted if it preserves and enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area.

2. The loss of heritage assets that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area will be resisted.

3. Where permission is granted for the demolition of a building in a conservation area, conditions will be imposed preventing demolition

Page 44 commencing prior to the approval of detailed plans of any replacement building, and ensuring that the developer has secured the implementation of the construction of the replacement building.

DM15.7 Noise and light pollution

1. Developers will be required to consider the impact of their developments on the noise environment and where appropriate provide a noise assessment. The layout, orientation, design and use of buildings should ensure that operational noise does not adversely affect neighbours, particularly noise-sensitive land uses such as housing, hospitals, schools and quiet open spaces.

2. Any potential noise conflict between existing activities and new development should be minimised. Where the avoidance of noise conflicts is impractical, mitigation measures such as noise attenuation and restrictions on operating hours will be implemented through appropriate planning conditions.

3. Noise and vibration from deconstruction and construction activities must be minimised and mitigation measures put in place to limit noise disturbance in the vicinity of the development.

4. Developers will be required to demonstrate that there will be no increase in background noise levels associated with new plant and equipment.

5. Internal and external lighting should be designed to reduce energy consumption, avoid spillage of light beyond where it is needed and protect the amenity of light-sensitive uses such as housing, hospitals and areas of importance for nature conservation.

DM17.1 Provision for waste

1. Waste facilities must be integrated into the design of buildings, wherever feasible, and allow for the separate storage and collection of recyclable materials, including compostable material.

2. On-site waste management, through techniques such as recyclate sorting or energy recovery, which minimises the need for waste transfer, should be incorporated wherever possible.

DM20.1 Principal shopping centres

1. Within Principal Shopping Centres (PSCs) the loss of retail frontage and floorspace will be resisted and additional retail provision will be encouraged. Proposals for changes between retail uses within the PSC will be assessed against the following considerations:

Page 45 a) maintaining a clear predominance of A1 shopping frontage within PSCs, refusing changes of use where it would result in more than 2 in 5 consecutive premises not in A1 or A2 deposit taker use; b) the contribution the unit makes to the function and character of the PSC; c) the effect of the proposal on the area involved in terms of the size of the unit, the length of its frontage, the composition and distribution of retail uses within the frontage and the location of the unit within the frontage.

2. Proposals for the change of use from shop (A1) to financial and professional service (A2) restaurant and cafes (A3) drinking establishments (A4) or hot food takeaways (A5), use at upper floor and basement levels will normally be permitted, where they do not detract from the functioning of the centre.

DM21.3 Residential environment

1. The amenity of existing residents within identified residential areas will be protected by:

a) resisting other uses which would cause undue noise disturbance, fumes and smells and vehicle or pedestrian movements likely to cause disturbance; b) requiring new development near existing dwellings to demonstrate adequate mitigation measures to address detrimental impact.

2. Noise-generating uses should be sited away from residential uses, where possible. Where residential and other uses are located within the same development or area, adequate noise mitigation measures must be provided and, where required, planning conditions will be imposed to protect residential amenity.

3. All development proposals should be designed to avoid overlooking and seek to protect the privacy, day lighting and sun lighting levels to adjacent residential accommodation.

4. All new residential development proposals must demonstrate how potential adverse noise impacts on and between dwellings will be mitigated by housing layout, design and materials.

5. The cumulative impact of individual developments on the amenity of existing residents will be considered.

Page 46 SCHEDULE

APPLICATION: 19/01359/FULL

186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR

Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation.

CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. REASON: To ensure compliance with the terms of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Works, including demolition, shall not begin until a scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects during demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based on the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection's Code of Practice for Deconstruction and Construction Sites and arrangements for liaison and monitoring (including any agreed monitoring contribution) set out therein. A staged scheme of protective works may be submitted in respect of individual stages of the development process but no works in any individual stage shall be commenced until the related scheme of protective works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme (including payment of any agreed monitoring contribution) REASON: To protect the amenities of nearby residents and commercial occupiers in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3. These details are required prior to any work commencing in order that the impact on amenities is minimised from the time that development starts.

3 Before any works thereby affected are begun, a scheme in the form of an acoustic report compiled by a qualified specialist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority specifying the materials and constructional methods to be used so that the noise level in the bedrooms does not exceed NR30 attributable to the Class A use of the ground floor and/or basement levels. The development pursuant to this permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and so maintained thereafter. REASON: To protect the amenities of residential occupiers in the building in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM21.3, DM21.5.

Page 47

4 Before any works thereby affected are begun, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the fume extract arrangements, materials and construction methods to be used to avoid noise and/or odour penetration to the upper floors from the Class A use. Flues must terminate at roof level or an agreed high level location which will not give rise to nuisance to other occupiers of the building or adjacent buildings. The details approved must be implemented before the Class A use takes place. REASON: In order to protect residential/commercial amenities in the building in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3.

5 No cooking shall take place within the Class A3 unit hereby approved until fume extract arrangements and ventilation have been installed to serve that unit in accordance with a scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority. Flues must terminate at roof level or an agreed high level location which will not give rise to nuisance to other occupiers of the building or adjacent buildings. REASON: In order to protect the amenity of the area in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM21.3.

6 All parts of the ventilation and extraction equipment including the odour control systems installed shall be cleaned, serviced and maintained in accordance with Section 5 of 'Control of Odour & Noise from Commercial Kitchen Extract Systems' dated September 2018 by EMAQ+ (or any subsequent updated version). A record of all such cleaning, servicing and maintenance shall be maintained and kept on site and upon request provided to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate compliance. REASON: To protect the occupiers of existing and adjoining premises and public amenity in accordance with Policies DM 10.1, DM 15.7 and DM 21.3

7 (a) The level of noise emitted from any new plant shall be lower than the existing background level by at least 10 dBA. Noise levels shall be determined at one metre from the window of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The background noise level shall be expressed as the lowest LA90 (10 minutes) during which plant is or may be in operation. (b) Following installation but before the new plant comes into operation measurements of noise from the new plant must be taken and a report demonstrating that the plant as installed meets the design requirements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (c) All constituent parts of the new plant shall be maintained and replaced in whole or in part as often is required to ensure compliance with the noise levels approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 48 REASON: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential/commercial occupiers in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.7, DM21.3.

8 Before any mechanical plant is used on the premises it shall be mounted in a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound or vibration to any other part of the building in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to protect the amenities of commercial occupiers in the building in accordance following policy of the Local Plan: DM15.7.

9 The louvres providing for the air intake supply hereby approved shall be positioned flush with the brick face of the building and shall be finished in a colour to match the existing brick surround. REASON: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the detail of the proposed development and to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM10.1, DM12.2.

10 The extract duct hereby approved shall be finished in a matt finish and in a colour to match the background to which it is fixed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works thereby affected are begun and all development pursuant to this permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details: REASON: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the detail of the proposed development and to ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM10.1, DM12.2.

11 The Class A3 hereby permitted shall not be open to customers between the hours of 23:00 on one day and 07:00 on the following day.

REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.7, DM21.3.

12 The premises shall not be used, occupied or operated other than in accordance with the approved Management Statement (or any amended Management Statement that may be approved from time to time by the Local Planning Authority) for the life of the use. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area generally in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM3.5, DM21.3.

13 No live or recorded music shall be played that it can be heard outside the premises or within any residential or other premises in the building.

Page 49 REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area in general in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.7, DM21.3.

14 No servicing of the premises shall be carried out between the hours of 23:00 on one day and 07:00 on the following day from Monday to Saturday and between 23:00 on Saturday and 07:00 on the following Monday and on Bank Holidays. Servicing includes the loading and unloading of goods from vehicles and putting rubbish outside the building. REASON: To avoid obstruction of the surrounding streets and to safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent premises, in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.7, DM16.2, DM21.3.

15 The refuse collection and storage facilities shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be provided and maintained throughout the life of the building for the use of the occupiers of the retail unit hereby approved. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory servicing of the building in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM17.1.

16 Accompanying documents : Drawing nos. Site location plan; 016-161- 02-rev I; 016-161-03 rev H; -16-161-04 rev I; 016-161-05 rev E; Plant Noise Impact Assessment rev 03 - Chapman Ventilation; Customer Management Plan updated December 2020 rec'd 11.12.2020; E mail (refuse storage) 30.03.2020 First Plan

INFORMATIVES

1 In dealing with this application the City has implemented the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in dealing with planning applications in the following ways:

detailed advice in the form of statutory policies in the Local Plan, Supplementary Planning documents, and other written guidance has been made available;

a full pre application advice service has been offered;

where appropriate the City has been available to provide guidance on how outstanding planning concerns may be addressed.

2 The Director of Markets and Consumer Protection states that any building proposal that will include catering facilities will be required to be constructed with adequate grease traps to the satisfaction of the Sewerage Undertaker, Thames Water Utilities Ltd, or their contractors.

Page 50 Background Papers

22.01.2020 Objection comment Mr Rico Li 22.01.2020 Objection comment Ms Zoe Wu 01.02.2020 Objection comment Mr Shuaib Qayum 29.11.2020 Objection comment Miss L Katabi 30.11.2020 Objection comment Mrs E Beckett 26.02.2020 and 18.11.2020 Letters CAAC 27.11.2020 Objection comment Lauren Martins

Page 51 Comments for Planning Application 19/01359/FULL

Application Summary Application Number: 19/01359/FULL Address: 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Proposal: Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres to the side elevation Case Officer: Sonia Williams

Customer Details Name: Mr Rico Li Address: 51 Effra Road London

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of the Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Noise - Other - Residential Amenity Comment:I lived in the building before. Restaurant downstairs caused a lot of issues of noise and odour. And the management company and the freeholder ignored residents' complains.

Page 52 Comments for Planning Application 19/01359/FULL

Application Summary Application Number: 19/01359/FULL Address: 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Proposal: Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres to the side elevation Case Officer: Sonia Williams

Customer Details Name: Ms Zoe Wu Address: Flat 12, 186-190 Bishopsgate London

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Noise - Other Comment:This project will produce lots of noise and odour which will cause trouble for the residence live above in the building.

Page 53 Comments for Planning Application 19/01359/FULL

Application Summary Application Number: 19/01359/FULL Address: 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Proposal: Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres to the side elevation Case Officer: Sonia Williams

Customer Details Name: Mr Shuaib Qayum Address: 186-190 Bishopsgate London

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Noise - Other Comment:Further use of this unit for food and the associated Disruption from more construction and building works is unbearable. This must not go ahead.

Page 54 Comments for Planning Application 19/01359/FULL

Application Summary Application Number: 19/01359/FULL Address: 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Proposal: Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation. REVISED DRAWINGS RECEIVED. Case Officer: Sonia Williams

Customer Details Name: Miss Lina Katabi Address: unit 9 186-190 Bishopsgate London

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Noise - Other - Residential Amenity Comment:Current restaurant is already causing a lot of problems with access to the garbage. in addition a five guys with these opening hours and with as much covers will generate a lot of noise and smell and as well as late traffic which will be a significant disturbance for the people living in the building.

KFC which is still a few buildings down have sometimes odours coming up to the flat.

Page 55 Comments for Planning Application 19/01359/FULL

Application Summary Application Number: 19/01359/FULL Address: 186 - 190 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4NR Proposal: Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation. REVISED DRAWINGS RECEIVED. Case Officer: Sonia Williams

Customer Details Name: Ms E Beckett Address: 186-190 Bishopsgate London

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: - Noise - Other Comment:As an owner of a flat within this block, I object to the constant food odours, noise from deliveries, and more disruption from proposed building works. We used to live above a quiet jewellers shop open 9-5 Mon to Fri, then overnight a fast food chain moved in occupying ground and first floor for takeaway and eat in, their opening hours were and have been until closure, 11am to 11pm, seven days a week! Not Including deliveries of food supplies etc. I believe it also devalues our properties and destroys the appearance of the building.

Page 56 City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Department of the Built Environment, Corporation of London, P.O. Box 270, Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

24th January 2020

Dear Sir/Madam,

At its meeting on 13th February 2020 the City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee considered the following planning application and reached the decision given below:

C.24 19/01359/FULL - 186 - 190 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4NR Bishopsgate Conservation Area/Bishopsgate Ward. Ward Club rep. Peter Luscombe. Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres to the side elevation.

There were no objections.

I should be glad if you would bring the views of the Committee to the attention of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs. Julie Fox Secretary

Page 57 City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Department of the Built Environment, Corporation of London, P.O. Box 270, Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

18th November 2020

Dear Sir/Madam,

At its meeting on 12th November 2020 the City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee considered the following planning application and reached the decision given below:

C.121 19/01359/FULL-186 -190 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4NR Bishopsgate Conservation Area/Bishopsgate Ward. No Ward Club rep. Change of use of basement, ground and first floor levels to a Class A3 restaurant plus external alterations comprising the installation of louvres and a full height external extract duct to the roof on the south elevation. REVISED DRAWINGS RECEIVED.

There were no objections to the change of use, but the Committee strongly objected to the proposed aluminium flue which was damaging to the building and unacceptable in a Conservation Area.

I should be glad if you would bring the views of the Committee to the attention of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs. Julie Fox Secretary

Page 58 From: ...Lauren Martins... To: PLN - Comments Subject: Stop louvres to be built at 186-190 Bishopsgate Date: 27 November 2020 18:08:53

Hi Sonia,

This email is a copy and paste from our 186-190 Bishopsgate Residents Association WhatsApp group.

Good afternoon residents, just an update on the louvres and heating in our building.

Our building was not built to support a food factory in the first floor facility.

For decades there was a Jewellery where wasabi is today, while the Jewellery was there, we NEVER had a problem with heat, noise, trucks, or our stairs to our waste deposit being blocked from us. What Wasabi is doing is unacceptable, it's inconsiderate with the residents, who occupy most of the building.

If wasabi wants to build an oversized factory-like kitchen down there, they need to make sure the well being of our residents is taken into consideration, we will vote against any new louvres to be built, that would vent even more hot hair to Victoria Avenue passage, where the hot hair can't go anywhere in this little dead end road, heating up our apartments to the point of being hazardous for elderly people inside.

The only way forward is to channel all the hot air coming off all louvres, into a chimney- like, where hot air comes off on top of the building, just like any other factory. The chimney-like must be built in a way that does not shake, or cause noise on the side wall of the building, where most of the bedrooms are located.

I will the above write to wasabi and speak with the manager in person.

I suggest the rest of the residents, to vote against any new louvres being built, unless they follow what is written on this letter. feel free to copy and paste the above.

Lauren Martins 186-190 Bishopsgate Residents Association

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 60 Agenda Item 5

Committees: Dates: Planning & Transportation Committee [for decision] 05 January 2021

Projects Sub Committee [for information] 25 January 2021

Subject: Gateway 5 City Streets: Transportation response to support Regular Covid-19 recovery Issue Report Unique Project Identifier: 12217 Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment Report Author: Leah Coburn – City Transportation PUBLIC

1. Status update Project Description:

This project implements temporary traffic management measures on City streets in response to Covid-19. These measures provide safer spaces for people walking and cycling, help facilitate social distancing and support businesses and City workers in their return to work.

The City Corporation’s transport response focuses on achieving two main aims:

• Residents, workers and visitors are safe and feel comfortable travelling into and within the Square Mile, particularly when travelling on foot, by bike and on public transport.

• City businesses are supported in their Covid-19 recovery and the City remains an attractive location for business.

The project primarily consists of on-street changes to provide additional space for people walking and cycling.

These were initially laid out using temporary materials such as barriers. Over the last few months, the majority of these have been replaced with ‘temporary plus’ materials using plastic

v.April 2019 Page 61

wands and bolt down kerbs. A number of adjustments have been made in response to feedback received. On some streets interventions have also been removed or not installed as they are longer considered necessary given the current volumes of people in the City.

On-street changes are being delivered alongside other measures to support businesses, manage travel demand and encourage travel on foot, by cycle and on public transport.

When this programme was first approved, the intention was to bring a report to Committees in December reporting back on the monitoring of the interventions. It was anticipated that the need for social distancing would be reduced or no longer required towards the end of 2020. December would have therefore been an appropriate time to review whether to retain some of the temporary measures on a permanent or experimental basis.

The ability to monitor the impact of the temporary measures and seek feedback has been hampered by the ongoing pandemic and associated restrictions, which have reduced the volume of vehicles and people in the City. Some level of restrictions and the need for social distancing are expected to remain in place until at least spring 2021.

It is recommended that the programme of temporary measures currently on-street remain in place, with a further review and detailed monitoring report brought to March or April Committees. Amendments to measures at particular locations will continue to be made between Committees if necessary and appropriate.

RAG Status: Amber (Green at last report to Committee) Risk Status: Medium (Medium at last report to Committee) Total Estimated Cost of Project (excluding risk): £1-2M Phase 1 - £116,500 Phase 2 - £932,244 Phase 3 - £568,500 Change in Total Estimated Cost of Project (excluding risk): No change Spend to Date: £1,301,216 Costed Risk Provision Utilised: N/A Slippage: N/A

v.April 2019 Page 62

2. Requested Next Gateway: Progress & Review Report – March 2021 decisions Requested Decisions: That Members:

1. Note the changes made to the on-street interventions to those approved by Committees in May and June 2020 (As set out in Section 5).

2. Note the intention to change existing measures on Coleman Street and Cheapside (as detailed in Section 4) and that cha will be exercised under authority already delegated to the Director of the Built Environment to initiate a Temporary Traffic Order.

3. Approve retaining the programme of temporary changes that are currently on-street, with a further review in March 2021.

4. Note the budget update for Phases 1 & 2 and approve an increase of £28k and the adjustments to the Phase 3 budget as detailed in Section 3.

3. Budget Phases 1 and 2 Expenditure to date on Phases 1 and 2 is £1,089,287. This exceeds the approved budget of £1,048,744 by £40,543. This is due to higher than expected staff costs. A detailed budget for Phases 1 and 2 will be brought to Committees in February once the final costs for fees and works are known.

Phase 1 and 2 works are funded by the Department for Transport (£100k) and Transport for London’s Streetspace programme (£949k).

Phase 3 For the Phase 3 measures, a funding envelope of £650k to be drawn from central capital funding was approved by P&R in July 2020 as part of a Gateway 2-4 report on Covid-19 Transportation. Subsequently, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of P&R approved a Gateway 5 report allocating £480k to deliver the first part of these Phase 3 measures, specifically the delivery of greening and seating across the Square Mile. A successful bid has been made to the Government’s High Street Fund and a grant of £30k has been awarded to the Corporation for the delivery of Phase 3 measures.

v.April 2019 Page 63

Members are asked to approve a budget increase of £28k to cover the costs of installing queue management signage to support City businesses. This activity took place over the summer and given the urgency, was originally funded from DBE Local Risk in order to enable delivery while capital budgets were being finalised.

In addition, to cover costs for the delivery Phase 3 measures approval is sought for a budget adjustment (from the budget of £480k approved in August 2020) between staff costs, fees and works. Greater efficiency and pace of delivery was achieved in this Phase of Covid-19 measures, with design work completed in-house by officers with detailed knowledge of the requirements rather than appointing a consultant. A budget adjustment between fees and staff costs is therefore proposed. Similarly, greater efficiency and pace will be achieved by consolidating all management of contractors and suppliers under the management of a single Corporation team. A budget adjustment between Highways and P&T staff costs is therefore proposed.

Table 1: Expenditure to Date - City Streets COVID-19 Ph 3 - 16800432 Approved Expenditure Balance (£) Description Budget (£) (£) Env Servs Staff Costs 18,500 1,205 17,295 Open Spaces Staff Costs 6,000 90 5,910

P&T Staff Costs 65,450 74,804 (9,354)

P&T Fees 35,500 1,095 34,405

Purchases 3,550 2,700 850

Env Servs Works 260,150 143,203 116,947 Open Spaces Works 30,350 22,106 8,244

TOTAL 419,500 245,204 174,296

v.April 2019 Page 64

Table 2 Revised Budget - City Streets COVID-19 Ph 3 - 16800432 Approved Adjustment Revised Description Budget (£) (£) * Budget (£) Env Servs Staff Costs 18,500 (12,000) 6,500 Open Spaces Staff Costs 6,000 0 6,000

P&T Staff Costs 65,450 53,000 118,450

P&T Fees 35,500 (25,500) 10,000

Purchases 3,550 0 3,550

Env Servs Works 260,150 15,000 275,150 Open Spaces Works 30,350 (2,500) 27,850

TOTAL 419,500 28,000 447,500 * Adjustment includes £28k additional funds for queue management

4. Issue Description At the time of writing there is still a need to facilitate safe social distancing on the City’s streets. This requirement is expected to continue until at least spring 2021.

Changes to the City’s streets to enable safe social distancing were delivered in anticipation of and to facilitate a gradual return of workers to the City. This return has so far been relatively limited and fluctuates depending on the level of restrictions (currently Tier 3). While the current low number of people in the City limits the need for additional space, the timing and extent of a meaningful return to the workplace remains unclear.

The first stage of interventions was rolled out on street using temporary materials from mid-June 2020. These have recently been replaced with more robust materials including bolt down wands and kerbs and bus boarders. These have the advantage of requiring less maintenance and provide greater clarity to all street users.

Throughout the project we have listened to feedback from street users and, where appropriate and possible, amended the on-street changes in response to this. Details are set out in Section 5 below.

We have also reduced the scale of the changes on streets by removing some of the features that were considered to be

v.April 2019 Page 65

unnecessary given currently low volumes of pedestrians in the City.

We will continue to keep this under review and could reinstate measures if volumes of people walking and cycling increase while social distancing is still required. This would however need to come back to Committees for approval and additional City Corporation funding would be required to deliver these changes.

As part of the review process will amend the timed access restrictions on Coleman Street (currently Monday to Friday, 7am – 7pm). At this location all day restrictions are causing some challenges for servicing. Subject to approval, the timing will be amended to peak time closures only: Monday to Friday • 07.00-10.00 • 12.00-14.00 • 16.00-19.00

Following feedback about the impact of the diversion of buses from Cheapside we will amend the current cycle only point closure to allow bus access. Transport for London support this alteration as it removes the requirement for buses to travel along Queen St and turn right into Poultry. The planters and seating that were recently installed can be retained under this arrangement.

Both changes would be made under new temporary traffic orders using the powers already delegated to the Director of the Built Environment.

When the initial proposals were brought to Committees in May we anticipated the interventions would be in place until December 2020. At that time, we expected to be able to bring a report back to Members with extensive data monitoring and public consultation feedback to help determine if any of the interventions should be made permanent.

It is now likely that these interventions will need to remain in place until March 2021 at the earliest. This is due to the continued pandemic and the ongoing need for social distancing

It is recommended that the temporary measures currently deployed on-street are retained, with a review and report to Members in March/April 2021. This will ensure the safety of residents, workers and visitors while social distancing requirements remain in place. It will also help encourage and enable people to walk and cycle, including as an alternative to using public transport, as the gradual return to the workplace continues. v.April 2019 Page 66

This will also provide an opportunity for further monitoring and consultation.

Depending on the progress of the pandemic it is possible that there will be events on the Highway scheduled in April 2021. The Events team have commented that the retention of these measures may add additional work and costs onto event organisers if they must remove and reinstate the temporary plus measures. The impact of this is being investigated and will be reported back in March.

Staff costs

As stated in the last update report (September 2020) there were significantly more staff costs expended during the completion of the work. Staff costs forecast were not sufficient for the level of detail that was required to design and deliver the proposals, the level of collaboration required across the department and with external partners such as Transport for London, or the level of internal reporting.

We will also be incurring additional costs due to the increased duration of the works being in place. Although part of this has been balanced out by reduced costs on construction of approximately £90K. The final invoices are being submitted for this work and we expect budgets will be finalised in time for February committees.

Additional Staff Cost is required for Phase 3 due to design works done internally instead of appointing external design consultants. This approach allowed for a more efficient and faster delivery of the design work. Fees budget has been reduced accordingly. Additional staff cost is also required due to the increased duration of the delivery of the project and additional engagement required with local businesses and boundary borough.

5. Progress to date Phases 1 & 2

Phases 1 and 2 were substantially completed in November. This includes the replacement of most of the interventions with ‘temporary plus’ materials. This took longer than anticipated with supply chain issues and longer time to finalise designs due to remote working and limitations around officers being able to undertake site visits.

Several alterations and amendments to the layouts have been made and are detailed in the table below:

v.April 2019 Page 67

Location Amendments/Additions Chancery Lane All barriers/footway widening removed. Access restriction remains. Holborn Viaduct and All measures currently Newgate Street deferred due to utility works and are unlikely to go ahead. Charterhouse Temporary measures not Square/Carthusian Street installed. Existing one-way eastbound to remain. Proceeding with School Street. Moorfields, South Place, All measures including the Eldon Street, Blomfield Street access restriction removed or and London Wall not implemented. Liverpool Street All temporary barriers removed. Access restriction remains. Outwich Street and All measures removed. Houndsditch Northern side of Camomile Barriers on the north side Street between Bishopsgate removed. and Outwich Street Leadenhall Street All barriers except those used for the bus and cycle restriction have been removed. Lime Street Access restriction extension removed. Existing access restriction extended from “Mon – Fri 8am – 6pm” plate to “Mon – Fri 7am – 7pm” Eastcheap & Great Tower All measures removed or not Street implemented. Aldgate & Aldgate Highway All measures removed or not Street implemented. Jewry Street, Crutched Friars All measures removed or not & Coppers Row implemented. Pedestrian priority & 15mph on Coopers Row remain. Gresham Street – north side Barriers on the northern side between Guildhall Yard and removed and layout Basinghall Street amended to accommodate loading bay. Barriers removed and two way working to be reinstated (at conclusion of utility works). Cannon Street by Queen Loading bay reinstated. Street v.April 2019 Page 68

Threadneedle Street Loading bay by Finch Lane to be added. Lothbury Barriers amended to aid access into the Bank of England. Old Jewry Motorcycle parking bay removed Ludgate Hill by Old Bailey Loading bay added. Various locations Amendments made to suit site conditions including construction works and bus stops. Various access restrictions Amended in several locations to allow Open Spaces team access Various Temp+ locations Amendments made/being made (such as to areas of footway widening, cycle lanes, etc) to accommodate Temp+ measures throughout

At a limited number of locations enforcement of the restriction is now taking place using the mobile camera enforcement unit.

Phase 3: Seating and Greening Elements

Phase 3 aims to deliver additional temporary seating and greening to create an attractive environment for residents, workers and visitors, and provide amenities for users of food and beverage businesses. The main elements and benefits of this are to:

• Provide facilities and space for users of food and beverage businesses. This will also support businesses in adapting to social distancing requirements by providing outdoor seating space • Provide additional greening and seating for those who visit, work and live in the City to enjoy. Greening interventions will also contribute to reducing the impact of climate change and support the wider aims of the Covid-19 transport response strategy • Facilitate the use of public spaces in a safe manner • Implement temporary measures to test the viability of long-term public realm improvements

A delegated Gateway 5 report on this phase of work was approved in August 2020 and funding subsequently granted from the City’s Central Fund.

Implementation of greening measures started in October in priority locations to respond to demand from businesses on v.April 2019 Page 69

Middlesex Street, Cheapside, Chancery Lane and Cursitor Street. Measures were also delivered in West Smithfield, Ludgate Broadway, Creechurch Lane and Philpot Lane. Installation of the parklets will commence in December and will be completed by January on Coleman Street, Creechurch Lane and Chancery Lane.

Work on delivering this phase has been delayed due to the time taken to secure the Central Funding and lengthy procurement processes.

Local businesses were informed of the interventions by letter and updates are available on the dedicated page on the City website. Monitoring and stakeholder engagement on this initiative will continue, along with Phases 1 & 2, to gather feedback on the street changes from the local users.

The design solutions considered for each site (parklets, street furniture, tables and chairs, and planters) offer a degree of flexibility which will allow for adjustments to be made on-site if required. The choice of materials, street furniture and planting are of high quality with low maintenance costs envisaged.

The locations for the interventions have been rationalised to reflect the site conditions, carriageway space, safety and demand. Detailed information on the locations currently being considered can be found in Appendix 2. Additional sites could be considered if there is public demand, depending on the availability of adequate locations and funding.

Cycle Parking

A Gateway 5 report to commence work and seek authority for the traffic orders was approved by delegated authority in September 2020.

270 temporary cycle parking spaces and 150 dockless hire bike spaces have been installed on-street. Off-street temporary cycle parking proposals will provide up to 182 cycle parking spaces in London Wall, Smithfield and Minories City car parks. The on-street provision uses 31 on-street car parking /motorcycle bays.

This is lower than the original proposal to reallocate 81 pay and display spaces. The amount of temporary cycle parking has been reduced due to practical issues limiting locations, which became apparent at detailed design stage and reflects the limited return of people to the City. The more limited use of pay and display bays means that the possible reduction of parking income is up to £128,650 rather than the original estimate of £336,000 of lost revenue. v.April 2019 Page 70

The on-street cycle parking was completed in November 2020 and it is expected that the off-street cycle parking will be completed by the end of December 2020. The usage of the temporary cycle parking will be monitored to assess which sites would benefit from being made permanent.

We have been working with the City of London Police to reduce the risk of cycle theft, which unfortunately has increased during the Covid-19 period. The inclusion of better facilities within our carparks is welcomed as they have 24-hour security. We have also jointly funded additional security cycle marking with the police, with 144 bikes marked since September. CoLP have also been successful in prosecuting several cycle thieves in the same period

School Street

The Gateway 5 report for a School Street on Charterhouse Street / Square and Carthusian Street was approved by the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee on 1 December 2020.

The scheme will operate using a timed road closure at school start and finish times and will be implemented with an Experimental Traffic Order.

The start of the scheme has been delayed due to the time taken to obtain agreement from the London Borough of Islington and the second national Covid-19 lockdown delaying data collection and engagement. Development work is now progressing, and the scheme is expected to be in place from late January 2021.

Public Consultation Feedback

Feedback from the public on the transport recovery measures is being obtained through an online map-based consultation platform. Respondents can provide feedback on streets where temporary changes have been implemented by answering questions on how well specific measures for each street are working. Respondents can also state if they would support any measures being retained long term.

As of 14 December, 383 respondents had left feedback on the platform for at least one street. The average respondent provided feedback for seven streets.

The low response rate is reflective of the lower than anticipated return of workers to the City as a result of Covid-19 restrictions. Assuming that the current measures are retained until Spring and that the numbers of people returning to the City increases, v.April 2019 Page 71

there will be further promotion of the survey to try and increase the response rate.

One quarter (95) of respondents who provided feedback stated that they live in the City, while 89% (341) stated they usually work in the City. This shows that there is an imbalance in the sample compared to the pre-pandemic daytime population of the City.

The most selected form of travel (both to/from and around the City) was taxi or private hire vehicle driver, selected by 42.3% of respondents (162). This is closely followed by walking (41.8% of respondents – 160 responses). Rail or underground (37.9%/145 of respondents) and taxi or private hire vehicle passenger (32.6%/125 of respondents) were the next largest choice for form of travel. Cyclists have made up 16% of all respondents (61). Respondents were able to select multiple modes of travel.

The table below shows the breakdown of consultation respondent by mode, in comparison to the % of surveyed movements in both 2019 and 2020 traffic surveys. It should be noted that the figures for traffic surveys displayed below are for sites on which changes have been made in 2020 and where data for both years is available. Consultation respondents are also able to select more than one mode of travel.

% of % of % of traffic traffic Mode of travel consultation count in count in responses Nov 2019 Oct 2020 Bus 25% 2% 5% Car 21% 7% 11% Cycle 16% 5% 13% Motorcycle 10% 1% 2% Not applicable / other 4% 0% 0% Not Not Rail or underground 38% counted counted Not Not River 1% counted counted Taxi or private hire 42% vehicle driver 4% 7% Taxi or private hire 33% vehicle passenger Van 5% 3% 8% Walk 42% 78% 55%

38 of the 383 respondents provided feedback on behalf of organisations. This included taxi representative groups, resident’s estate groups, and some City building operators. v.April 2019 Page 72

The consultation portal was set up to allow a detailed feedback on each of the interventions. This means that respondents can comment on an individual element of a scheme or comment on several, or all the interventions, as they wish. This approach is best suited to analysis of a particular scheme. However, given the relatively low response to date and the fact that the consultation is still underway, a more strategic approach to analysis has been undertaken. This provides an overview of the general ‘feeling’ of the responses to date.

Based on responses to the question ‘Would you support any of these measures being retained long term?’: • 85% of responses said ‘No’, • 11% said ‘Yes’, and • 4% said ‘Yes, with changes’.

It should be noted that this question is asked in relation to each individual change within each scheme, so there could be five changes in a location and the respondent could say yes or no to one or all of those five changes. The above percentages show an aggregate position of all these individual responses.

Respondents were asked to provide qualitative feedback in three free text questions, the most popular points are summarised below.

Detail on what is working well:

• Environment • Pedestrian space • Reduced pollution

Detail on what is not working well:

• Increased traffic & congestion • Access • Increased pollution

Although the measures have been in place for six months, the number of City Workers and visitors able to experience the interventions and provide feedback has been limited.

For most of this time, workers have been told by the Government to ‘work from home if you can do so’. This guidance has been adhered to as the volume of people traveling into the City has not been greater than 25% of the pre-pandemic levels. ‘Higher’ volumes generally occur Tuesday to Thursday. Currently, across the City vehicle volumes are at 50-60% of their pre-pandemic levels, whilst pedestrians are at only 25%. This is considered to be the main v.April 2019 Page 73

reason why vehicular modes are over-represented in the consultation response rates.

The consultation overview above is representative of respondents who are most likely to have experienced some negative consequence of the interventions being in place. For example, increased journey times or less direct routes at certain times of the day.

We have had responses from some businesses that their ability to service and receive deliveries to their businesses has been made more difficult by the walking and cycling measures. In many cases we have been able to adapt these on street or provide information about routing and timed closures.

With a number of businesses not being open yet, it is also difficult to understand fully the impact of the interventions on them and their workers and visitors. While it is expected that some businesses may find servicing and deliveries impacted by some of the interventions, we also expect that their workers and visitors may have positive experiences for journeys to and from work, particularly if they walk or cycle all or some of their journey.

It is for these reasons that it is suggested that the feedback to date should be noted but is not yet sufficient to inform decisions on whether the measures should be retained.

If the measures are retained until March, then there will be an opportunity to collect further feedback. This will enable us to understand opinions across a wider range of businesses, workers and visitors.

Monitoring – General volumes in the City

Vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian counts were undertaken at 27 City sites for one day in early September 2020 and one day in early October 2020. Of these 27 sites, 20 had undergone one or more traffic management changes as part of the transport recovery programme. 11 of the 20 sites have historic data available for comparison.

At these 11 sites, vehicle volumes were down 42% on average, cyclist volumes down 13% and pedestrian volumes down 78%, when comparing the average of September and October 2020 surveys to 2019 data.

v.April 2019 Page 74

Cycling Volumes

Given the magnitude of change in the overall City activity levels and the supressed number of people walking in the City, the degree of impact on cycling numbers is relatively minor.

In some of the locations where cycling provisions have been made, a corresponding increase in cycling numbers has been observed. For example, on Cannon Street, where a westbound cycle lane has been introduced, cycling volumes have increased by 110% in the westbound direction across a 24- hour period compared to 2019 data.

The number of people cycling has remained relatively stable despite the overall reduction of workers in the City, this suggests that a larger percentage of people are choosing to travel by cycle during the pandemic. It could be reasonable to expect that there will be a substantive increase in cycle numbers as people return to work in the City.

Vehicle Volumes

In terms of the observed vehicle volume decreases, changes are likely attributable to both a general reduction in City activity levels, due to Covid-19 restrictions, as well as the on-street measures (where targeted changes have been made to reduce traffic levels).

Across a 24-hour period there have been observed decreases in traffic at all 11 of the sites where on-street changes were made, but also at 3 further sites where no changes were made. Survey sites include key distributor roads such as London Wall, Cannon Street and Queen Victoria Street. This indicates that, to date, traffic reassignment as a result of the on-street measures has been managed within existing capacity. It should be noted that Bishopsgate / Gracechurch Street has not been surveyed.

City of London Police ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) data has also observed a decrease in vehicle volumes in comparison to 2019, and the latest data available (for week commencing 14th December), showed vehicle volumes at just 19% of 2019 levels. It should be noted that count sites are different to those used for traffic surveys.

Pedestrian Volumes

In terms of pedestrian volumes, the City has three key datasets to draw upon, the first is the survey data as outlined above, the second is ‘gateline’ data (entries at City of London tube stations), and the third is anonymised and aggregated O2 v.April 2019 Page 75

mobile data which counts the number of people (by mobile signal) in the City compared with pre-pandemic levels. The table below shows the change observed in each of these datasets for the 6 October compared to pre-pandemic volumes.

Dataset Date of collection Percentage Change Pedestrian counts 6 October 2020 -78% at 14 locations across the City Tube station Week -78% entries at City of commencing 5 London stations October O2 mobile people 6 October 2020 -72% movement data

These low volumes mean that on-street measures are not being as well used by people walking as they are by users of other modes. It is also likely to account for the under- representation of walking as a main mode within the consultation responses.

It should be noted that between the first survey on 9 September and the second survey on 6 October 2020 there was an announcement that people should again work from home where possible. The impact of this announcement is suspected to account for the observed reduced pedestrian levels by 6% and cyclist levels by 17% between the two counts. There was no change to vehicle volumes.

Impact of the second national restrictions.

In terms of quantifying the impact of the second national restrictions on City activity levels, the latest data received from Transport for London indicates that tube station entries in the City of London reduced to 46,663 per day during week commencing 9th November, down from 81,382 per day during the week commencing 21st September (when there was a lower level of localised restrictions); a decrease of 42%. When compared to the 2019 data, the week commencing 9 November showed that tube entries were on average down 88%.

Air Quality

We assess the impact of any traffic management scheme by measuring Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx). Overall, within the City levels of NOx have reduced significantly since March 2020. Although in recent months concentrations have started to increase slightly, they are still low overall. v.April 2019 Page 76

We receive data from two sites in the City on a daily basis - Upper Thames Street and Beech Street. As Beech Street has a ‘Zero Emission’ experimental restriction in place which was implemented in March, it is not representative of other streets in the City. On Upper Thames Street, the average concentration of nitrogen dioxide in September 2020 was 40 mg/m3, this compares to 69 mg/m3 in September 2019. In August 2020 the concentration was 41 mg/m3.

Of the 36 sites where changes have been made under this programme. 21 sites have a diffusion tube located on, or close to them. When comparing the average diffusion tube reading from 01/04/2020 – 01/09/2020 (latest data point available), to the average of period 01/01/2019 – 01/03/2020, there has been a reduction of 38% in NO2 levels. It should be noted that not all sites where changes have been implemented have a locally located diffusion tube and emerging readings are provisional at this stage.

Equalities Considerations

Equalities Assessments were undertaken on all the phases of the proposals and reported with the Gateway 5 approval. We are continuing to liaise with the City of London Access Group and Transport for All on the proposals. Due to the potential impact on blind and partially sighted people, the RNIB were consulted during the early stages of the Temporary plus design process and deployment. The meetings with the RNIB confirmed that they were content with the methodology and products being used. We will be undertaking a final view with the RNIB on site now that the roll out of Temporary plus measures has been completed.

.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Update on Phase 1 & 2 work Appendix 2 Phase 3 site interventions

Contact

Report Author Leah Coburn – City Transportation Email Address [email protected] Telephone Number 020 7332 1567

v.April 2019 Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78 A 1 01 H STREET A12 S 2 WORT T EP 0 T Clerkenwell E 5 E 1 . R A 0 ST 2 J A O N T TO E D 1 H T RE U T A 0 W N S T T T Covid-19: City Streets A S T E R F T A E O 4 N A E E N S I E R E ER R E G R R R S E S R R A T FF R R IN T T E U T E N H S R D T G I S D ST E E Y G B A O R ONHILL STREET E I N L T U U E T N R L B U H Y A O N S U N A RE E T E E L C C P Y F H I V A G B I L C O U STREE T Walking & Cycling Measures A T C W T L E N QUAKER STREET E Y I 1 D TR 0 S H H 2 Y 5 E NWE A E D KE LL ROAD I R I E N R N A L L R C TU T E

T R L O R 2 O E WORSHIP S R F TREET L C HILL 0 G E A R A 1 R O

O N O O D B E H E W S S E G W S O W S R S A SH IP S O S 5 TR E E

SSA CS1 E Key 0 T R AD T O L R A R

A ELL 1 NW L ERKE B E L P 5 C R E E

2 R T IT ET T FINS 0 T RE BUR E T B’S T O ST Y SQ T 0 FANN E U O E A C

R A R

R N M O F E L T G A N I R

L D M

S S N S L

A L

M T T T

W T S

H R S O M I . E Extra space provided for walking and/or extra

L N B

N E F O A L J E E E O

T T O U D

T T R R T S S L FO A H R N L

H T GA

O T L O TE C N Y I S

R S P TR N IND P O EE I

A T

R

E ’ A

S S W P space provided for cycling

E S T T P R T N A L

L CH Q E L ISW E R

H EL

A L E S U F A STREET T S T O

C O R

A N A T Spitalfields

E J A E R R E N ARL P . S U E TR I R C EET ND E T HISW A Q N H ELL R A S L ST S L I TREE TR S URY STREET L A T S B OO N T EE PITAL HAN P T S FI T N T N RT G IA SBU L T S RY S A PO HU E QUARE M B STREET Extra space provided for walking. Temporary O T D R T CA BEECH STREET TUNNEL E N E O R T E T T

G N E S R S U EXCHANGE E U N A Y T one way street, with contra-flow cycle lane R S K Y T ST R Farringdon T R SQUARE R R T E R E N D I E A E R R S T S O T U CS1 E S U E L B E Barbican Q Link N A S B N Y U D B KE COWCROS O S M S STREET H O D IL R E S S E N E S T E R I T R N R O L W N A LA P F V I R A H E I C G S M Q Link E N A F A W S 2 O G K E L E Restricted access for motor vehicles N R P E 0 D T A S GAR 1 TR S T T E FOURNIER STREET G ’ EE ET R DWIN TR E S A BAL LE S Y D TREET D T IELD S ’ ET I BRUSHF S E M R STR Aldersgate S E T VILL E OU E Restricted access for motor vehicles I RE N G E Q11 T H E T E P N T R L R E I N A E A C T C R F MOORFIELDS E T A S

T R S H L N O E Street under TfL authority E T W O S O U N M U L R N I O C ION 1 T A H O ST P REE

R REE 0 M N ST T S IO H E O E ASH

D T I F R 5 LD LANE A

A M O R E T H N ARTILLERY see TfL website for details A

C S C OW A T T S R R RE HITE’ O E W C 5 FO E T 2 N T RE S Moorgate T I 0 E T SBUR A GA REE IN Y C 0 E T A F IR 00 M L D R C ID BROOKE STREE L D G U 11 D S IE L T S L B TO R F A E A S Chancery H E S R Liverpool S R D T I E I E N Y T T F X O L E E M O N E S H E S D L R N R W Existing cycle route Lane Street T T W T O T T Y B E S S I D R L E T E ’ E ES M A E S A E ET S W E T S O M U T N E A40 O AA E O G

H R L E R S 2020 I S TE ANE T T W T A1 TR S R L S T E P HOL B A L O 11 E O R H E O N HOS Cripplegate F E 2 C D IER R U I E L B N T H 0 B S N T E LANE R ET S LI S E T 2 U H I I RE BU VE I W F R I SHOE T T R D P L A A S LL A1211 Y CIRCUS L T OO B S H DON WA T D M IN E LON IE L RE I T U EE S E N P I G F T T R G T T A M R O M Q Link T T E O S S E S N L S N N T ET O D TRE REET O B S ST W M N Liverpool EV H . E D RT T T O O TREE W 4 A H N W I E BR A S NT O C S N H L OA H E L D H A O S E STRE O Street IR W L E D L E D N R I R RO A RE B RITA ET N O B T N AL UR E B W E L A B SINGHALL AVENU C A R T E C W N LIT S E

L T A

E N U L O V E E S R I N LD S E A TSP L E N D A B T Y RNIV D T O O NE T D C6 D E E O B R N L L U V E U R OOK’ O E V L L A C T W H GIL O E L F N E N A N N L T A S L S A L C E S N N O L H S R T A I A A 1 R T 2 T E L 1 E L RWICH ST D 1 NO E T T S K R Q11 L R E S P O E E Q L T I O A O U U

N G O V E E C T E A W G H City - L N R RR M G A O T N G E O W G T E R E E TT R E E TE FETTER AT S G E R U W TE A A TE

N F P V T T F SS A R S E L O L Thameslink W AA TOR AR O A A - I S

SI D UR ALLEY R N C S CH H M T NN C

W RG S H E T H RGRG S W O W ’ T E I AA O T ER D O R H N E A ANGEL STR OO S E I D E N M T E E T T M O

R R L I O N I O AA E E S N EE T 1 D M E M 12 K S T L T GR LL M S 21 E E R

1 H A G E 1 S OO N AN X R E S H 1 O N A D N L M CC E D BUILDINGS T A 0 U E S A T

Page 79 Page S AM ’ E S T L BRE R TR 1 N T O E O T E R G E E T R A D S V A M E U

N E T A

4 B S R E

0 W

T R T T N . E D E E E G T D

W T E T OO I T S L T G E N A A S O C T T R BB

E A D G E H

W E R L R S V L

T S V S I

R S A EE A T EE E S P I E

. E R T SM L N T E R T B E E O X P

Y R A W A E T E M R T R E E H A H

E H I S R K L A C S D I G

E ET R S I T E Y E N C S S E E N O HA I R CS2 T H A T S KING M R T F I S A S I A K T S A RE TREET B K OE S L ET S H 2 A T B ON S H H L GO K RT L W C L R 0 R DSM L O M T P IG IT M L E A H I T E H G 1 1 E D O O H L E S LO R S . E R L A T N N TRE M E TH H T T A E T T T STRE BURY R O N E R O E E N S T E N D B R U S . ST C T A A E St. Paul’s T Y B L E O E T D S R E Aldgate

A R R

E P U C E RY D

R R YY Y M B U

U T R T U K F E I S E E R R K D S R I T B E 1 L L C IA G N D S E 1 L O H E ’ L EA RO L DL S’ 2 W S E A A PS W N W C EE 1

ACO IDE TRUMP ST O ADN P A C A A E L A N SE O HRE

E JEJE S T V T E N LA M S

E

N S 3 H

T O 1 G M II OLDOLD R City R E 2 H M I E A E N 1 E

R N T T FLEET STREET Thameslink T EE A A A C A N I R N E HE T L G A W AP S N S SID E D E E L L M A H D S L E A W C W L C L E I U N D H Bank N E T M G N C I A J E OL TE D N E S H A A O R I L OU I E T LL E IT S B N F R R D W L T B E4 W B T H R E U G P T I LA O F R E PUO E

R T R L E R T H R E UTRLY E E T S S T RY ILL H Y E E RN Y CO R I II R T T T E D S T L E CORNHIL S

C B T R R E S F G E L T

T T I L QUEEN ST N R L L

O L E E O R S E O P E I L

D M I E E A N ST. S M I P Q11 A A B N UL S E E ’S T T R A CHURCH PANC E B Cornhill T I HY RAS R A S A E S R A T S L D W N S A E E R R R AT T L R R T L TE E C IN LANE E A U D E A S D A B G ER T D S S RT R R T O

V O T RE TS M N T R E E S S 1 D R T IA H I EE A U R R C6 A RI N I L T A ANE OR H 2 E S OT E E R U E R O R CT N CI C VE 1 T E E F VI A S V E B TT R T N E 0 T E I T L E N E S UE I K L E F QU B E E T L R C Q OL NCH AVENU R C 3 E F AN OM URCH A I A M

N V R C 1 R M A B S ON BA L D T L I I 2

D E S A L R N

D T E

R S O I B R D D N EE D 1 N E

A N A T K S Y LE R K E O A S A F T Y T D O K S I TR M L I E S R NI RE L ’ S ST O N E N T T I ER S T EE H ID G ET R TR E R S G T E ST ’ C A R T E TUDOR STREET I KNIGH B V S YDON N H L E R N W HA L E QUEEN ST I W E

L U E E R A T N A H I CULLUM ST

R R T E E D STA F L LI E U

I F T L E C T T W I T E

LI TR H AI

N C S

A W A S ET

N M P RE E

T T

ET NO S M H S

E L L EN E N ARUNDEL STREET P QU R C OK E T I S E . T ST EN VIC S H R RT TO S T Mansion E A RIA T S PO R RI STRE IA R T U E ET S

U TO OR T EE T C H R C T T S A IC E I T

V N V L R C ALL N EE W

T QU CL R R N Fenchurch CROSS E House C N O R E

K A E

E E K F S L E

T E A E N U

V E

N E

T S

U T Street T

A H

H

Q S

R R E O L C A

E I

I L

T J N E R L I I F YD DOC AN’S

D C M

L D P I ABCHURCH LANE OO H C E G

C T A H

E NN TC OO

M A U

Y O E LE E N CR

M E Blackfriars T

E S R N 1 T P QUEEN ST

T R R A Cannon EE A N E 0 T G T Tower A G E S DD L L T R NE A 2 CS3 A R A

C H N L ’ U Street S M A A N L G Gateway Tower A3 1 OW L L 21 P L K R I N D I I Y R EET E H STR O N C H E YS C A A L H S PEP W P IG O

N H N E N

L T U O I P CS3 ST I IM BER T T M EM ES L S B EA R M S T A U N TC T H E T S H T T P P EAP M R I R N PE T P UP WH EET E I R U E R E ARS L U BLACKFRI T E B T

T NKM ENT A3211 T H ICTORIA EM BAN A O D V M M S E F E P NE S S D A R PASS R S UNDER T E I N E R I N E N E C T E L T L C N G Blackfriars K N S L L Monument

E F E T WHA A L S R I ARE ER L U RT E R R U Q L E L I O H I A S H L B A U W S L

U P E T L N Y

A E

H R T E T L E L I E Q N L Tower T TR S A GI L N W I S A L O N L I G R N ST R W W H E T I A L A Hill H T E C6 Q11 N L I K I S T S R M G O S I W 0 H N 0 F E 1 U CS3 A H N R A BB I T L O S I S T YWARD ST IL L LL H C B K N R L

AA E U TOW

CC D . KK ST FF LOW RR ER TH I I AM

A E A CS7 S STREE CS3 A RR T A 1 3211 W 20 SS 3 0 A TE 0 Billingsgate R BB L 3 LO N ES W L RR A ER A 0 I I TH 0 DD AM W D ES 1 GG A S Y 3 TR T A

EE E O E T A T E R Riv H AA P E er C 22 E Thames G A

00 G 11 D O D I

I R R

R P

B B P

A N K

R O E A D G

N W D I O H L R T

B U Tower O R S E

W O T Updated 15th December 2020

© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 OS 100023243 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Appendix 2 Project update: Covid Phase 3

Page 81 Page site interventions

December 2020 Appendix 2 : Phase 3 Greening and seating measures

Location map

8 Page 82 Page

7 6

9. Philpot lane Summary of Interventions

No. Location Interventions Status West Smithfield (west Seating area created on the carriageway with planters and temporary carriageway painting using the Completed 1 side of Rotunda garden) Culture Mile pattern, including semi-permanent benches and stools. Planters at point closure installed on the carriageway as part of Phase 1 (no through route from King Completed 2 Cheapside * Street to New Change, except for off street premises and cyclists), including a seating area with semi- permanent benches. Completed Planters at point closure installed on the carriageway as part of Phase 1 (pedestrian priority section Chancery Lane between Carey Street and Southhampton buildings, 7:00am-7:00pm). 3 (Carey Street to Southampton Buildings) * Installation of 2 Parklets to provide seating and planting to be completed by January. In progress Completed Planters and seating installed in Cursitor Street. Additional moveable seats were provided to the Chancery 4 Cursitor street Lane Association and are to be managed by local businesses (Cursitor Street is already pedestrianised). Coleman Street (Great In progress Page 83 Page 5 Bell Alley to Coleman Installation of 2 Parklets to provide seating and planting to be completed by January. Street Buildings) * Completed 6 Ludgate Broadway Seating area created on the carriageway with planters and semi-permanent benches.

Seating area created on the carriageway with planters. In progress 7 Creechurch Lane Installation of 2 parklets to be completed by January. Link to City Cluster Vision work programme and planned greening interventions for the area. Completed Seating area created on the carriageway with planters at the south end of Middlesex Street, including semi-permanent tables and chairs and benches. Middlesex Street (south Additional planters installed on the carriageway along eastern and western kerb lines so businesses can 8 end of Middlesex St + install movable table and chairs when the Petticoat Lane Market is not operating. Project developed and western footway) delivered in collaboration with by local businesses, Aldgate BID and London Borough of Tower Hamlet, who recently introduced a temporary road closure for the south end of the street where a temporary colourful painting design was installed on the carriageway.

9 Philpot Lane Seating area created on the carriageway with planters and seating. Completed * Streets also part of Covid recovery Phase 1 Page 84 Page

West Smithfield. Carriageway paint Page 85 Page

West Smithfield. Carriageway paint and planters Page 86 Page

Cheapside. Page 87 Page

Cheapside. Page 88 Page

Cursitor Street. Page 89 Page

Cursitor Street. Page 90 Page

Creechurch Lane Page 91 Page

Middlesex Street This page is intentionally left blank

Page 92 Agenda Item 6 Committees Dated: Planning and Transportation Committee 5 January 2020 Policy and Resources Committee 21 January 2020 Subject: Public Recovery Task Force: Interim Report with Preliminary Blueprint Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s 2, 5-12 Corporate Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue N spending? If so, how much? What is the source of Funding? Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Damian Nussbaum, Director For information Innovation & Growth Report author: Damian Nussbaum, Director Innovation & Growth

Summary

This report provides Members with an update of the Recovery Task Force’s work since November. The Task Force’s preliminary blueprint is outlined in the attached slides. We will be testing this preliminary blueprint with Members, Businesses, and the public in the first quarter of 2021. A final report will then be brought to P&R and P&T for approval.

Recommendation

P&R and P&T Members are asked to: • Note the preliminary blueprint of the Recovery Task Force (attached). • Note the plans for engaging with stakeholders.

Main Report Background: 1. The prosperity of cities across the world is under threat. Those able to adapt to the new environment, and help shape it, will thrive. The Corporation has a crucial role to play not only in helping the City to adapt and meet changing demands, but also in turbo-charging its recovery following potential losses from the pandemic.

2. The Recovery Task Force will provide a blueprint for how the Square Mile can remain internationally competitive and locally vibrant. This will speed the City’s evolution towards being the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business eco- system. The mission of the taskforce is to ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business ecosystem, an attractive place to work, live and visit.

3. The Task Force will build on ongoing work from the Corporation that is relevant to the taskforce mission including the work of the Culture and Commerce task force; the Climate Action strategy; and London Recharged, among others. The project will focus on four dimensions:

i. Outstanding environments (i.e. the right workspaces, environment, and infrastructure)

Page 93 ii. People (i.e. attracting the best and brightest) iii. Vibrant offer (i.e. what makes it fun and exciting to be here, attracting talent and visitors) iv. World-class business ecosystem (i.e. thriving businesses with innovation and growth opportunities)

4. The Recovery Task Force is the third leg of the City Corporation’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic:

• Urgent Response: Work on short-term measures and activity to support the Square Mile’s initial recovery will continue to be led by Gold group, and the relevant Silver Group. • Reopening: a campaign to encourage a return to the Square Mile. • Recovery Task Force focusing on the Square Mile’s success in the medium term.

Approach 5. The project is being led by a small core team from Innovation and Growth (IG), Department of the Built Environment (DBE), Culture, Strategy and Performance, and Chamberlains. It is supported by cross-cutting working groups and external consultants (Oliver Wyman).

6. The project is being overseen by the Chairs of Policy & Resources and Planning & Transportation Committees, supported by their deputies, and Mayoral/SABTAC input. In the next phase we will be engaging with the Chairs of relevant committees. There will also be a Members Briefing for the wider Court. Externally we will be talking to a wider range of Square Mile stakeholders. Given the time constraints, it is intended to engage external stakeholders informally to test and refine the proposals rather than to undertake a formal consultation.

7. The Task Force has drawn on a range of existing strategies including the Climate Action Strategy, the draft City Plan 2036, Transport Strategy, London Recharged and other relevant sources. Having completed the desktop review of existing ideas and data, and prepared the preliminary blueprint, the next steps are: • Early 2021 – Initial findings and first iteration of blueprint, engagement with Members. • First quarter 2021: Member and Stakeholder engagement to test and refine blueprint and identify potential delivery partners. • Spring 2021: Committee approvals and publication.

Governance

8. The project will be overseen by the Policy & Resources Committee and the Planning & Transportation Committee, steered by their Chairs and relevant Chief Officers, with wider Member engagement. The final report will be brought to Committee for approval. Given the urgency, will aim to complete within six-months (from November 2020).

Page 94 Corporate & Strategic Implication 9. Strategic implications – This goes to the heart of the Corporate Plan in underpinning the aim of having a vibrant and thriving City. The outputs are also likely to inform the review of the Transport Strategy that will be undertaken in 2021/22.

10. Resource and financial implications – A PIF allocation was approved by Members in November. There are no funding implications at this stage.

11. Legal implications – No legal implications have been identified at this stage. This will be kept under review.

12. Risk implications – At this stage in the project, no significant risks have been identified. This will be kept under review.

13. Equalities implications – At this stage in the project, no negative equalities implications have been identified. This will be kept under review and equalities analysis will be carried out if necessary, to ensure negative impacts can be mitigated and opportunities for positive impacts exploited.

14. Climate implications – This will be fully in line with the Climate Action Strategy and will look to drive the implementation of the actions that Members have agreed.

15. Security implications – There are no security implications which have been identified at this stage in the project. This will be kept under review.

Conclusion 16. At a crucial moment for the future of London and the UK, the Task Force will provide Members with a blueprint for the actions to take to ensure the Square Mile remains internationally competitive and locally vibrant.

Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 96 Recovery Taskforce (RTF):

Page 97 Page Interim Report

P&T - 5 January 2021 P&R – 21 January 2021 Contents

1. Purpose 2. Approach 3. Preliminary blueprint 4. Stakeholder engagement

Page 98 Page 5. Appendix: governance and high level timelines

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 1. Purpose The Recovery Task Force will provide the Corporation’s long-term response to current challenges…. The challenge • The prosperity of cities across the world is under threat. The pandemic has introduced new challenges and accelerated global trend. • These are testing times. Cities will need to help shape the new environment in order to thrive. They will also need to enable businesses to recover from potentially significant economic losses during the pandemic • The Corporation can help the City to adapt and meet changing demands. We will do this by developing and implementing an actionable five-year blueprint for the Square Mile that will help the Square Mile to

Page 99 Page remain internationally competitive and locally vibrant.

The aim of the Task Force • The pandemic will accelerate change, so that global hubs will have a critical but evolving role in the future. Firms will want to get their people together to coach, collaborate, create, and nurture a community. Workers want flexible work patterns, the buzz of working closely with others, and a place with a vibrant offer. • We aim to ensure that the Square Mile remains a great place to invest, work, live and visit. By seizing the opportunities, the City can remain a powerhouse for creating jobs and growth, in collaboration with the rest of London and the UK. • Pre-Covid, the Corporation had already developed a portfolio of initiatives to assure its future as an international hub. The pandemic requires these existing strategies to be accelerated or adapted. By integrating the key actions, and bringing in new ideas, we can create a compelling vision for the future success of the City. This will support the City’s evolution towards being the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business eco-system.

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3 1. Purpose We will focus on a critical mission:

Ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, Page 100 Page inclusive and sustainable business eco-system, an attractive place to invest, work, live and visit.

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4 1. Purpose The RTF is focusing on four dimensions…

Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality, World-class business ecosystem culture, tourism) (i.e. thriving businesses with (i.e. what makes it fun and exciting innovation and growth to be here, attracting talent opportunities) and visitors)

Page 101 Page Competitiveness Strategy; London Culture Strategy; Visitor Strategy; Recharged; Climate Action Culture & Commerce Taskforce

People (i.e. attracting the best and brightest)

Outstanding environments (i.e. the right workspaces, environment, and infrastructure)

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 5 1. Purpose The Recovery Task Force will create a 5-year blueprint which is actionable

• The Recovery Taskforce will create a Blueprint which … – …Will capture COL’s priority policies, activities and collaborations in the Square Mile, helping us focus on the “big moves” – …Will provide structure to our response to the changing context from COVID and structural trends that are shifting demands and expectations of the Square Mile – …Will not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of all COL initiatives (in the Square Mile or London more broadly), but rather those that enable our mission Page 102 Page

• The target vision is focused on how we can attract business to the Square Mile and enable them to thrive and grow through the following dimensions: - Outstanding environments (i.e. the right workspaces, environment, and infrastructure) - World-class business ecosystem (i.e. thriving businesses with innovation and growth opportunities) - Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality, culture, tourism)(i.e. what makes it fun and exciting to be here, attracting talent and visitors)

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 6 2. RTF approach We are building the blueprint using a ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ approach

Approach summary

‘Top down’ approach

Activities: define the narrative, articulating the target outcomes and vision

Purpose: Ensures blueprint reflects bold ambition for the Square Mile’s

Page 103 Page future; and enables prioritisation of policies for action

Gaps to be identified where existing actions (‘bottom up’) do not enable target outcomes and vision (‘top down’)

‘Bottom up’ approach

Activities: review COL’s existing strategy materials and determine the priority enablers that can help to deliver the RTF mission

Purpose: Ensure blueprint reflects actions already defined by COL, including policies already in flight

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 7 2. RTF approach The ‘top down’ approach provides the narrative

Our mission is to ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business eco-system, an attractive place to invest, work, live and visit

• Global social and economic trends necessitate change within urban centres WHY around the world. The pandemic has accelerated these trends. we need to act • There is an opportunity, but the City must act quickly to embrace it while addressing the challenges of COVID opportunity and meeting the changing demands of business and individuals

• The City attracts talented people and businesses to the Square Mile, enabling

Page 104 Page WHAT them to thrive & grow success looks like • As a result, City is the world’s pre-eminent hub for FS, PS and tech firms – with innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability at its heart

• We will ‘ unlock’ our vision of success through the following dimensions: – Outstanding environments with the right workspaces, environment, and HOW infrastructure we will do it – World-class business ecosystem enabling thriving businesses – Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality, culture, heritage, tourism) that makes it fun and inspiring to be here, attracting talent and visitors

• Internally: we will streamline our existing efforts into a ‘blueprint’ of high priority, HOW high impact activities. We will partner across the Corporation to deliver we will work • Externally: we will validate with key stakeholders (e.g. business leaders), and define delivery models with external partners

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 8 2. RTF approach The ‘bottom up’ approach identifies the enablers for the blueprint We have conducted a comprehensive review of the most relevant COL strategies to short- list priority enablers that will help us to achieve the RTF mission Approach summary Drill-down into steps #2 and 3

1. Review COL strategies 1 most relevant to the RTF mission in detail

2. Create long-list actions

Page 105 Page (‘enablers’) outlined within those strategies

3. Prioritise actions/’enablers’ based on which can deliver most impact for the RTF mission

4. Test and refine with key stakeholders (e.g. via workshops, 1:1 engagement Example enablers to be prioritised for RTF mission with Chairs) • Create a SME outreach network • Facilitate collaborative action on air pollution in London • …

1. Includes transport, climate, London Recharged, and culture strategy. Additional review of Local Plan, social mobility; digital skills; responsible Business; air quality. Strategies in development to consult further as required: biodiversity, cultural re-growth, competitiveness

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 9 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The RTF Preliminary Blueprint is driven by 9 Big Moves Our mission is to ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business eco-system, an attractive place to invest, work, live and visit

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome

1. Curate thriving innovation A. Square Mile is London’s (and the world’s) innovation and thought leadership hub , especially for green finance, ecosystems in strategic fintech, the creative industries, and AI sectors

World-class business 2. Enable high potential ecosystem (i.e. thriving business to start, adapt, and B. Square Mile is the best place to establish, grow, and transform your business businesses with grow innovation and growth opportunities) 3. Be inclusive and outward C. To broker growth in strategic sectors, the Square Mile is a catalyst for cross-industry and cross-geo. partnership , looking attracting experts from all over London & the globe and breaking down industry siloes

4. Open London’s D. The Square Mile fosters talent and equips people to succeed, especially within FPS and tech opportunities to everyone Page 106 Page E. The Square Mile provides a vibrant retail, hospitality and cultural offering that is engaging, dynamic, and Vibrant offer (retail, animated. hospitality, culture, tourism) 5. Create a vibrant and (i.e. what makes it fun engaging City offer F. The Square Mile provides a sense of belonging to an extremely diverse range of people, cultures and and exciting to be here, capabilities. It celebrates and prioritises its diversity, and has an “open border” with greater London attracting talent & visitors)

G. Square Mile has the infrastructural ‘underpinnings’ that enable it to adapt to (and foresee) changes in user demands, tech and climate, inc: flexible and adaptable office space ; resilience, renewal energy, universal 6. Invest in the infrastructure broadband, and 5G of tomorrow H. Emerging tech (e.g. ‘Smart City’ technologies) is easily piloted within the Square Mile. Solutions are adopted Outstanding based on impact environments 7. Ensure the City’s streets and (i.e. the right I. The City’s streets are safe, accessible and attractive places to walk, cycle and spend time . Residents, workers spaces are great places to workspaces, and visitors enjoy high quality and engaging public realm. environment, and spend time infrastructure) 8. Embrace data as a social J. The Square Mile routinely explores how real-time (anonymised) data can be used to solve City challenges , utility enabling solutions for widespread use

9. Make sustainability part of K. Sustainability is central to the Square Mile’s built infrastructure and planning efforts (e.g. circular economy; the Square Mile’s DNA renewable energy targets; strict green standards in new and existing builds; fewer, cleaner motor vehicles)

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The Big Moves are translated into target outcomes, delivered by key enablers (1/5)

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome Key Enablers 1. Agree priority ‘strategic’ innovation sectors for the Square Mile, investigating Green finance; Fintech; Creative Industries; and AI in particular

A. Square Mile is London’s (and the 2. Provide the right innovation ecosystem by 1. Curate thriving world’s) innovation and thought – Defining actors required to ‘bring to life’ innovation innovation ecosystems in leadership hub , especially for within strategic sectors strategic sectors green finance, fintech, the – Determining level of intervention require to facilitate creative industries, and AI growth in strategic sectors

Page 107 Page – Promoting existing innovation spaces World-class business – Brokering partnerships between organisations to ecosystem (i.e. enhance office space thriving businesses with innovation and 5. Broker and streamline access to growth finance from growth opportunities) across the globe, reducing barriers to access across the capital journey 6. Incentivise businesses, esp SMEs, to undergo digital 2. Enable high potential B. Square Mile is the best place to transformations business to start, adapt, establish, grow, and transform your 7. Provide tailored support to SMEs on their decarbonisation and grow business journeys, inc. building resilient supply chains; establishing resilient commercial models 8. Further support programmes for emerging entrepreneurs in creative sectors, inc. financial expertise and business advice

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The Big Moves are translated into target outcomes, delivered by key enablers (2/5)

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome Key Enablers 25. Broker cross-sector partnerships to foster innovation and collaboration within strategic sectors by – Convening networking and collaboration opportunities C. To broker growth in strategic between business, higher ed., research institutions, and sectors, the Square Mile is a cultural orgs catalyst for cross-industry and – Establishing cultural and thought leadership 3. Be inclusive and cross-geo. partnership , attracting programming ideas to enhance the Square Mile’s outward looking experts from all over London & the reputation as a collaborative hub World-class business globe and breaking down industry siloes Page 108 Page ecosystem (i.e. 26. Expand on the Corporation’s existing UK programme to thriving businesses convene mayors from across the UK to share best with innovation and practice on specific policy topics (e.g. through growth roundtables) and participate in global trade missions opportunities) convened by the Lord Mayor 37. Determine where there are skills shortages and how to promote supply to firms in the Square Mile in an inclusive way. (e.g. through promoting the Square Mile’s brand, D. The Square Mile fosters talent 4. Open London’s leveraging the work of the Social Mobility taskforce) and equips people to succeed, opportunities to everyone especially within FPS and tech 38. Support ongoing career development of FPS and tech workers, through e.g. apprenticeship programmes, trainings aligned to FSSC agenda

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The Big Moves are translated into target outcomes, delivered by key enablers (3/5)

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome Key Enablers

49. Continue to invest in the City’s brand with regards to its ‘vibrant offer.’ This should include – Sharpening definition of City’s target audiences & their demands – Tackling perception issues (e.g. City is not seen as a 24/7 city) – ‘Integrating’ to make offer easier to understand and navigate – Enabling co-location between consumers and producers 50. Curate a portfolio of programming and high profile events that will promote the City’s brand as an inclusive and vibrant space to audiences E. The Square Mile within the Square Mile and outside of it. This should include provides a vibrant retail, – Collaboration across Corporation departments Page 109 Page hospitality and cultural – Enabling supporting planning and development schemes (see offering that is engaging, ‘Outstanding Environments’ for further detail) dynamic, and animated. 51. Create more connected routes for visitors that reveal the cultural, Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality and heritage offer including for business visitors. hospitality, culture, 52. Sharpen the City’s retail and hospitality offer. This will require tourism) 5. Create a vibrant and (i.e. what makes it fun – engaging City offer Definition of City’s key differentiators with respect to retail and hospitality and exciting to be here, – Understanding how City’s retail and hospitality offers can reinforce the attracting talent and other (e.g. on-street dining) visitors) – Understanding how the retail and hospitality offering can contribute to City’s target audiences (e.g. younger workers)

63. Be a leader in promoting, celebrating and enabling diversity across the F. The Square Mile Square Mile (inc. racial, ethnic, social background, LBTQ, gender). This includes provides a sense of – Building on existing interventions that Corporation has already undertaken belonging to an extremely (e.g. Tackling Racism Taskforce) and existing diversity within the City diverse range of people, – Understanding how to reach out to hard-to-reach communities cultures and capabilities. It – celebrates and prioritises Improving diversity in decision making bodies & setting targets its diversity, and has an 64. Strengthen the visibility of cultural organisations and sense of welcome “open border” with within the Square Mile greater London 65. Provide opportunities for communities to engage and inform our vibrant offer – engendering sense of ownership and pride

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 13 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The Big Moves are translated into target outcomes, delivered by key enablers (4/5)

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome Key Enablers

68. Pilot transformation of office stock to support new uses, inc. hyperflexible spaces

G. Square Mile has the 69. Establish a best-in-class communications strategy that includes e.g. 5G, infrastructural ‘underpinnings’ broadband being widely available across the Square Mile that enable it to adapt to 70. Develop a Square Mile renewable energy strategy that ensures a (and foresee) changes in renewable energy network and addresses the existing obstacles to user demands, tech and renewable energy today climate, inc: flexible and adaptable office space ; 71. Embed a climate resilience lens into all our decision-making and planning resilience, renewal energy, processes universal broadband, and 72. Determine what sufficient supply of EV charging infrastructure is, and how 6. Invest in the infrastructure 5G this balances against other emerging tech needs Page 110 Page of tomorrow 73. Ensure planning policies facilitate where appropriate a) quick response to demands within the public realm, b) meanwhile spaces (e.g. pop-up markets)

Outstanding 85. Establish an emerging tech programme to environments – Create a working group to define and push forward agenda (i.e. the right H. Emerging tech (e.g. ‘Smart – workspaces, City’ technologies) is easily Identify ‘smart city’ technologies that could be deployed to resolve environment, and piloted within the Square specific needs, e.g. logistics infrastructure) Mile. Solutions are adopted – Identify barriers to delivery, mitigation plan and potential working partners based on impact to support delivery – Support and facilitate trials to assess the benefits and impacts of emerging technologies and accelerate the development of appropriate solutions

96. Put the needs of people walking first when designing and managing our streets 97. Apply the City of London Street Accessibility Standard [Development I. The City’s streets are safe, should be completed by March] accessible and attractive 7. Ensure the City’s streets and 98. Provide more public space and deliver world-class public realm, through places to walk, cycle and spaces are great places to e.g. spend time. Residents, workers spend time – and visitors enjoy high quality Dedicated space for cultural activities and programming and engaging public realm. – Enhanced greening and biodiversity – Increased supply of public space, esp. underutilised parts of the estate 99. Create a core network of safe, attractive and accessible cycle routes

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 14 3. Preliminary blueprint Draft The Big Moves are translated into target outcomes, delivered by key enablers (5/5)

Dimension ‘Big move’ Outcome Key Enablers

120. Explore how to operationalise data use cases where specific needs have been identified. This includes J. The Square Mile routinely explores – Improving energy efficiency within the Square Mile 8. Embrace data as a social how real-time (anonymised) data can – Creating efficient and safe street space across the Square Mile utility be used to solve City challenges , – Understanding pedestrian behaviours and demand with the enabling solutions for widespread use Square Mile – Enabling policy decision-making and broader innovation ecosystem development

121. Reduce air pollution within the Square Mile (e.g. through Outstanding collaboration and innovative action) Page 111 Page environments (i.e. the right 122. Develop a Square Mile renewable energy strategy workspaces, 123. Maximise the use of renewable energy sources across our environment, and operational buildings (e.g. rainwater re-use, ‘green’ batteries) infrastructure) K. Sustainability is central to the Square Mile’s built infrastructure and planning 124. Transform the energy efficiency of our operational buildings 9. Make sustainability part of efforts (e.g. circular economy; through the adoption of best available technologies and the Square Mile’s DNA renewable energy targets; strict green explore how to retro-fit heritage buildings standards in new and existing builds; 125. Work with our partners to create a more climate resilient and fewer, cleaner motor vehicles) diversified energy network across the Square Mile 126. Support and champion a central London Zero Emission Zone (including next generation road user charging) 127. Embrace circular economy principles across our building strategies

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 15 3. Approach to stakeholder engagement Based on the preliminary Blueprint, we will engage externally in the first quarter of 2021 We are engaging with stakeholders across each of the below dimensions to ensure the blueprint has impact

Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality, World-class business ecosystem culture, tourism) (i.e. thriving businesses with (i.e. what makes it fun and exciting innovation and growth to be here, attracting talent opportunities) and visitors)

Competitiveness Strategy; London Culture Strategy; Visitor Strategy; Page 112 Page Recharged; Climate Action Culture & Commerce Taskforce

People (i.e. attracting the best and brightest)

Outstanding environments (i.e. the right workspaces, environment, and infrastructure)

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 16 3. Approach to stakeholder engagement We have segmented stakeholder group for the appropriate conversation/engagement We will brief stakeholder and capture feedback on the blueprint via bilateral discussion, roundtables, and public engagement Type of engagement Objectives Activities

• Inform on direction of travel • Test hypotheses underpinning blueprint in open discussion • Receive challenge on enablers Bilateral discussions Jan (e.g. sufficiently ambitious?) • Provide update on progress since 1:1’s with senior leaders last touchpoint (if applicable) on RTF agenda Page 113 Page

• Inform on action plan (once • Present key enablers underpinning sharpened) blueprint target outcomes Roundtables • Receive input on key challenges • Gather input on delivery Thematic discussion related to delivery and how to implications and suitable timing with specific audience overcome groups

• Inform on RTF mission and action • Present RTF mission and high level plan action plan Public engagement • Answer questions from attendees • Capture key concerns Late Engagement with COL Feb residents and workers

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 17 Appendix Recovery Task Force – Recap of Phase 1 Activities

Phase 1: Developing the narrative, fact base and priorities (pre-Christmas) Phase 2 (post Christmas) Workshops & ext. Develop the Build the narrative and fact base Prioritise action engagement detailed planning blueprint November December January – April 2021

Activities Activities Activities Activities

• Prioritise policies • Define the Square Mile’s compelling narrative and vision for • Conduct internal • Develop the from long list: Page 114 Page 2025. Narrative to reflect ambition for medium-term changes workshops on select detailed, Create a to ensure international competitiveness topic areas actionable prioritization blueprint for • Create policy “long list,” with primary inputs from CoL’s framework to • Finalise interim draft change culture strategy, climate strategy, transport strategy, and determine which blueprint for Report, London Recharged report policies create • Create external • most impact for Refine with • Identify gaps within policy long list . Assess existing long list stakeholder the Square Mile stakeholders and against target vision. Consider if addt’l policies may be engagement plan potential delivery required to support delivery partners • Conduct stakeholder mapping to identify relevant external organisations that could support delivery Output Output Output Output • Target vision for the Square Mile • Policy short-list to be • Draft, high-level • Detailed blueprint included in blueprint blueprint in • Policy long-list to undergo prioritisation Committee Report • High level engagement plan

Target milestones Steering committees with RTF leadership Delivery milestones

Stakeholder workshops to test blueprint hypotheses

© CITY OF LONDON, 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 18 Agenda Item 7

STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB (PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION) COMMITTEE Tuesday, 1 December 2020

Minutes of the virtual meeting of the Streets and Walkways Sub (Planning and Transportation) Committee held on Tuesday, 1 December 2020 at 11.00 am

Present

Members: Oliver Sells QC (Chairman) Graham Packham (Deputy Chairman) Randall Anderson Peter Bennett Deputy Keith Bottomley Marianne Fredericks Sheriff Christopher Hayward Shravan Joshi Deputy Alastair Moss Alderman Alison Gowman (Ex-Officio Member) Christopher Hill (Ex-Officio Member) Paul Martinelli (Ex-Officio Member) Barbara Newman (Ex-Officio Member)

Officers: Ian Hughes - Department of the Built Environment Olumayowa Obisesan - Chamberlain’s Department Aqib Hussain - Chamberlain’s Department Leah Coburn - Department of the Built Environment Shani Annand-Baron - Town Clerk’s Department Clarisse Tavin - Department of the Built Environment Tom Noble - Department of the Built Environment Kay English - Department of the Built Environment Nina Houghton-Worsfold - City of London Police Ola Obadara - City Surveyor’s Department Maria Curro - Department of the Built Environment Simon Glynn - Department of the Built Environment Helen Kearney - Department of the Built Environment Katie Adnams - Department of the Built Environment Caroline O’Donoghue - Department of the Built Environment Clive Whittle - Department of the Built Environment Andrew Shorten - City Surveyor’s Department Joseph Anstee - Town Clerk’s Department

At the start of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Members and those watching the live broadcast of the meeting via YouTube, before reminding Members of the guidance circulated for the conducting of remote meetings.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies.

Page 115

2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Deputy Alastair Moss declared a professional interest in Item 10 – City Streets: Transportation Response to Support Covid-19 Recovery: Charterhouse School Street and advised that he would withdraw from the discussion and consideration of this item.

3. MINUTES With regards to the decisions in respect of the Beech Street Transportation and Public Realm Project, the Sub Committee noted that two of the four requested modifications to the experimental scheme had not been recommended at that stage and were not agreed, and suggested the minutes be amended to make this explicit.

A Member advised that they had since followed up on the points raised about crime in the area and ensuring appropriate connections between the Department of the Built Environment and the City of London Police were in place.

RESOLVED – That, pending the above amendment, the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 15 October 2020 be agreed as a correct record.

4. FLEET STREET AND TEMPLE HEALTHY STREETS PLAN The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Fleet Street and Temple Healthy Streets Plan. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the key points.

In response to a question from a Member regarding previous plans for Fleet Street, the Director of the Built Environment advised that the project would take account of proposals for other developments in the area. The Director of the Built Environment also confirmed that officers were working with the Climate Action team to ensure that the project was aligned with the Climate Action Strategy.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

1. Agree that a budget of £87,200 is approved to reach the next Gateway;

2. Note the total estimated cost of the project at £255,006.20 (excluding risk); and

3. Approve the eastern extension of the Healthy Streets Plan boundary to align with the Fleet Street Partnership area boundary.

Page 116

5. WEST SMITHFIELD AREA PUBLIC REALM AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECT The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the public realm and transportation project for the West Smithfield area. The Chairman introduced the item and advised that there had been two recent Member engagement sessions on the project.

A Member commented that whilst they supported the scheme, they had reservations on aspects of the recommended decisions, including the delegation of funding and endorsement of the attached RIBA Stage 2 draft Concept Design and vision statement, which were now out of date. The Member also suggested adding a timeline for design development of Area 2. The Sub Committee noted that there were a number of unknowns which limited the ability to impose a timeline, but that 2022 had been given as an indicative timescale. The Director of the Built Environment advised that the RIBA Stage 2 draft Concept Design was a guide for the future and was not a commitment to detail at this stage but would inform understanding of support for the project.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

1. Endorse the attached RIBA Stage 2 draft Concept Design and vision statement for the West Smithfield area;

2. Agree to progress the Developed Design (to RIBA Stage 3) for Area 1, engagement and supporting work as set out in the report;

3. Agree to further develop Options 1-3 presented in this report, associated with transport and public realm changes in Area 1, for Member decision on a preferred option at Gateway 4;

4. Agree that the Museum of London S278 works be incorporated into the design and delivery of Area 1;

5. Agree that additional budget of £565,014 is approved to reach the next Gateway;

6. Agree that £134,986 underspent from the current budget allocation is carried forward to be used on this next stage of the project;

7. Note that a report to initiate a developed design for Area 2 will be brought to Committee once greater certainty is available on uses and timing of the redevelopment of the Central Markets buildings;

8. Note the revised project budget of £1,280,014 (excluding risk); and

9. Note the total estimated cost of the project at £12m (excluding risk).

Page 117

6. LUDGATE CIRCUS - OBJECTIONS TO THE EXPERIMENTAL BANNED LEFT TURN FROM LUDGATE HILL INTO NEW BRIDGE STREET The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment presenting responses to the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) that introduced a ‘no left turn’ restriction on all traffic turning left from Ludgate Hill into New Bridge Street in December 2019, with Members asked to consider the responses and decide whether or not the experiment should be made permanent.

The Sub Committee considered the objections to the experiment, noting that under the scheme cyclists needed to take a more circuitous route in order to travel in the direction of Blackfriars. Whilst Members acknowledged that objections on these grounds carried weight, it was felt overall objection to the experiment had been modest, and that the benefits of the scheme outweighed concerns, principally as the scheme had proven beneficial for pedestrians, who were the main user group at the junction. Members felt the experiment had been successful and were supportive of making the scheme permanent.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

1. Agree to the making of a Traffic Order under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make the experimental banned left turn for all vehicles permanent; and

2. That the objectors and TfL be informed of the decision accordingly.

7. MOOR LANE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS, EC2Y 9SS The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Moor Lane Environmental Enhancements project. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report, and in response to a question from a Member, advised that the principles of the Climate Action Strategy would be embedded in the scheme as it progressed.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

1. Approve a total budget of £230,382 to reach the next Gateway and proceed with the design review of Moor Lane, subject to the funds being received. This is to be funded by both the existing Moor Lane budget and the 21 Moorfields Section 278 as outlined below;

2. Approve a budget allocation of £128,566 from the existing approved implementation budget of £1,133,610 for the review and modification of the Moor Lane design to reach the next Gateway;

3. Approve the initiation of the Section 278 design, evaluation and the negotiation, drafting and completion of a Section 278 agreement in respect of 21 Moorfields relating to Moor Lane, at an estimated cost of £101,816 to reach the next Gateway and subject to the receipt of funds; and

Page 118

4. Note the total estimated cost of the project at £1.7M- £2.2M (excluding risk).

8. ST ALPHAGE GARDENS ENHANCEMENT The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the St. Alphage Gardens Enhancement, a project to deliver public realm enhancements to the gardens and a newly created space surrounding the London Wall Place development.

In response to a question from a Member regarding London Wall Walk and Plaque 12, the Director of the Built Environment advised the plaque had been removed following damage prior to the development and replaced with interpretational panels. However, this would be followed up with the Historic Environment team with further details to follow. The Director of the Built Environment further advised that the Planning Policy team were looking at the issue of vacant units nearby and considering opportunities to fill them.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee approve the content of this outcome report and agree to close this project.

9. SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE HIGHWAY The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment outlining the major special events planned for 2021 and provides Members the opportunity to consider & comment on the appropriateness of those events, taking into account their nature, scale, impact and benefits. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the key points, particularly regarding COVID-19 and the impact the pandemic has had on events in 2020, and its likely effect going forward into 2021.

In response to a question from a Member, the Director of the Built Environment advised that events were only listed where they had an impact on the highway, and confirmed that proposals to hold the Cart Marking ceremonial event on a Saturday were under consideration. A Member suggested that moving the event to late July or August be considered as an alternative to facilitate attendance by both workers and the local community.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee agree to support the proposed events outlined in this report, subject to the appropriate constraints and guidance related to COVID-19.

10. CITY STREETS: TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE TO SUPPORT COVID-19 RECOVERY: CHARTERHOUSE SCHOOL STREET The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning a proposal for a project to implement a “school street” outside Charterhouse School. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and explained the background behind the proposal, also advising that the school was supportive of the scheme.

A Member voiced reservations about the proposals, on the basis that parents would continue to commute in by car due to their geographic spread, and that

Page 119

the current pick-up/drop-off system worked well, so a new scheme may create disbenefit, particularly during rush hour. Members also asked for clarification on engagement undertaken with the school, and with Islington if necessary.

The Director of the Built Environment advised that officers had engaged with the school and considered feedback from parents. The experimental order, if agreed, would be monitored and feedback gathered to inform any further proposals that were forthcoming. The school would also sign up to TfL’s STARS project which would generate further engagement. The Director confirmed that as the scheme involved a boundary street the scheme would require Islington’s agreement, and they had indicated support. Physical changes were not proposed at this stage but could be considered if the scheme were to be made permanent.

In response to further points raised by Members, the Director of the Built Environment advised that officers would seek clarification on any planning obligations attached to recent consent to expand the school, and that a return to a one-way system with a widened pavement had been considered. The experimental scheme had funding in place, but if the experiment were successful contributions to funding physical enhancements could be sought.

The Chairman then advised he had asked the Comptroller and City Solicitor’s Department to draft a legal checklist to provide in support of schemes to ensure full compliance and that all obligations were discharged. The Chairman added that whilst closures were a sensitive matter, the proposed route was appropriate, and the temporary experiment would allow for consultation and data collection before any further decisions.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

1. Approve the implementation of the Charterhouse School Street using an ETO, at a total estimated cost of £60,000, subject to agreement from LBI and no objections from statutory consultees;

2. Following the implementation of the ETO, any objections received during the statutory consultation period (up to 6 months from the implementation date) will be reported back to Members when making a final decision whether or not to make the scheme permanent or whether a public enquiry into any objections is required; and

3. Note that approval to use the £60,000 funding has been granted from the City’s Central Fund.

11. REVIEW AND PRIORITISATION OF RING-FENCED S106 DEPOSITS The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment seeking approval for a further allocation of ring-fenced S106 funds, consistent with previous Member approvals and corporate priorities. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report, gave Members an overview of the review so far and drew attention to the key points.

Page 120

The Sub Committee then discussed the report, noting the complexities of allocating these funds and the impact of new priorities such as the Climate Action Strategy, and requesting further detail on unspent funds. The Director of the Built Environment advised that there were between £2 and £4 million in unspent S106 deposits, with some allocated and some the subject of negotiation with developers. Spends were often restricted according to geographic area or purpose, but officers had tried to reallocate funds where there was flexibility. Further reporting would be brought to Committee regarding unallocated funding.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

i. Authorise the allocation of £1.48M in ring-fenced S106 funding outlined in the report; and

ii. Note that a further report is planned in 2021 with information on the remaining unallocated S106 deposits.

12. CITY PLACEMAKING AND PUBLIC SPACE REVIEW The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment setting out plans to carry out a review and update of design guidance and technical information in relation to public space and placemaking. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the key points.

In response to points raised by Members, the Director of the Built Environment advised that the work would be aligned with the COVID-19 Recovery Taskforce and review of the Transport Strategy with a view to complementing various other pieces of ongoing work. The Director of the Built Environment added that design decisions would be addressed off the back of strategic work. With regards to cost, the scope of the project was wider than originally anticipated and provided the opportunity to explore the option of newer techniques. However, officers would look to deliver the project efficiently and providing value for money.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee:

a) Agree the programme start up and next steps;

b) Agree the allocation of £52,495 from the S106 deposits detailed in the report to commence Phase 1;

c) Note that a progress report will be provided in early 2021 with a detailed brief to deliver the Public Space and Placemaking Vision and Outcomes and to seek approval to commence Phase 2; and

d) Note that £102,495 from the S106 deposits detailed in the report have been ear-marked for the City Placemaking and Public Space Review.

Page 121

13. COMBINED PRE-GATEWAY 5 PROJECT CLOSURES The Sub Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk setting out a number of projects that had not yet reached Gateway 5 of the City’s Project Procedure and that were no longer being progressed. It was therefore recommended that Members approve that the projects be closed.

The Sub Committee expressed concern that the Department of the Built Environment project spends totalled £550,000, with limited output, and expressed some reluctance to effectively agree financial losses on this scale without a certain degree of guidance and scrutiny. Members queried whether the processes around early project closures should be reviewed.

A Member, in his capacity as Chairman of the Projects Sub Committee, advised that this type of closure was initiated principally where projects were no longer needed, or where they were no longer funded. The Member advised that the Projects Sub Committee would examine the closures in detail and provide an appropriate level of scrutiny, as Members were right to suggest that projects should not be closed without sufficient and appropriate reasoning. The Sub Committee agreed that the recommendations should be agreed, subject to the agreement of the Projects Sub Committee.

RESOLVED – That the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee approve the eleven projects submitted by the Department of the Built Environment for closure, subject to the agreement of the Projects Sub Committee.

14. 52-54 LIME STREET SECTION 278 WORKS AND 10 FENCHURCH AVENUE SECTION 278 WORKS The Sub Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment updating Members on the completion of the second phase of the Section 278 highway works associated with developments at 52-54 Lime Street and 10 Fenchurch Avenue which were deferred in 2018.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

15. OUTSTANDING REFERENCES The Sub Committee received a list of outstanding references.

Dockless Vehicles A Member commented that the anticipated e-scooter trial was taking longer than expected and expressed their hope that a decision on how to proceed could be considered before Spring 2021. The Director of the Built Environment advised that a report was due to be considered before the beginning of the trial and explained the provisional parameters of the trial. Some wider issues had been uncovered during preparation but it was hoped a report would be submitted for consideration in February 2021.

RESOLVED – That the outstanding references list be noted.

Page 122

16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS A Member queried whether the Sub Committee was responsible for signage within the Barbican Estate where it was on City of London public highway, as a sign had been recently installed that seemed to be incongruous and ineffective. Another Member added that they were aware of the example raised and advised that the sign’s map was single-level, and consequently confusing on the Barbican Highwalk.

The Director of the Built Environment responded that the sign was part of the Legible London initiative, which had been considered by the Sub Committee and Planning & Transportation Committee previously, but had also been considered elsewhere for the Barbican Estate, where multiple options for delivery had been considered. The Director of the Built Environment asked that specific concerns be reported so that further information could be provided.

17. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Item No. Paragraph(s) in Schedule 12A 18 – 20 3 21 -

18. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2020 be agreed as a correct record.

19. PUBLIC REALM SECURITY PROGRAMME The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment.

20. ALDGATE (PORTSOKEN) PAVILION The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor.

21. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE SUB COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There was one item of other business.

The meeting ended at 12.58 pm

Chairman

Contact Officer: Joseph Anstee tel. no.: 020 7332 1480 [email protected]

Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 124

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE – OUTSTANDING ACTIONS

Progress Update and Date to be Item Date Action/ Responsible Officer progressed/completed 1 18 March 2019 Daylight/Sunlight – Alternative Guidelines UPDATE: (27 Oct 2020) : Officers reported that 2 April 2019 British Standards had published guidance on this last 30 April 2019 Chief Planning Officer and Development year but that the BRE guidelines were still awaited. 24 May 2019 Director Officers were now set to meet with the BRE to 18 June 2019 understand their intended timeline for this and intended 9 July 2019 A Member argued that the Committee should to align the City’s work with this.

30 July 2019 separate out the desire for Member training and the With regard to the associated Member Training request 10 Sept 2019 desire for alternative guidelines on on this matter, Officers were now looking at the BRE 1 Oct 2019 daylight/sunlight,and requested that a report be webinars and how Officers could work with these and 22 Oct 2019 brought to Committee setting out how the City of would update Members on this matter at the 15 Page 125 Page 5 Nov 2019 London Corporation might go about creating December 2020 meeting of this Committee. 12 Dec 2019 alternative guidelines, including timescales, if 28 Jan 2020 Members were so minded and the legal implications To be completed: Target of February 2021. 18 Feb 2020 of this. 6 March 2020 2 June 2020 23 June 2020 14 July 2020 8 Sept 2020 Agenda Item 8 6 Oct 2020 27 Oct 2020 17 Nov 2020 15 Dec 2020

2 18 June 2019 Construction Works UPDATE: (27 Oct 2020): Officers stated that it was 9 July 2019 very difficult for the planning system to control the 30 July 2019 Chief Planning Officer and Development start dates on construction sites, particularly in the 10 Sept 2019 Director current circumstances. There was, however, a 1 Oct 2019 Code of Construction which allowed Officers to 22 Oct 2019 A Member referred to the many construction sites deal with the cumulative impact of the number of 5 Nov 2019 within her Ward that were causing construction sites due to come on stream and they 12 Dec 2019 noise/disturbance issues. She asked if officers would continue to manage any issues in this way. 28 Jan 2020 could look at how this matter might be improved and Members were also informed that a Development 18 Feb 2020 more effectively controlled and questioned whether Liaison Manager had now been recruited and one 6 March 2020 any restrictions could be placed on construction of the key roles for the postholder was to provide 2 June 2020 when applications were first approved/granted an overview of forthcoming schemes with a view to 23 June 2020 consent. coordinating these in terms of implementation. 14 July 2020 8 Sept 2020 The Chair reiterated that Members had also To be completed: Target of February 2021 6 Oct 2020 requested, at the last meeting of this Committee, 27 Oct 2020 that Officers consider what powers, if any, might be 17 Nov 2020 used with regard to construction time periods and 15 Dec 2020 how construction in any given area might ‘dovetail’.

3 6 March 2020 Member Training UPDATE: (17 November 2020): Members were of Page 126 Page 2 June 2020 the view that more formal training should be 23 June 2020 Chief Planning Officer and Development offered by the Department to any newly appointed 14 July 2020 Director / Director of the Built Environment members of the Committee in line with the 8 Sept 2020 principles of the Planning Protocol. 6 Oct 2020 A Member questioned whether there would be 27 Oct 2020 further training provided on Daylight/Sunlight and To be completed: Training offering for new 17 Nov 2020 other relevant planning matters going forward. She Members to be considered in early 2021 with a 15 Dec 2020 stated that she was aware that other local view to implementing this for the new authorities offered more extensive training and municipal year. induction for Planning Committee members and also requested that those sitting on the Planning Committee signed dispensations stating that they UPDATE (15 December 2021) – Officers to look at had received adequate training. incorporating a demonstration of recently developed Virtual Reality (VR) Software into The Chair asked that the relevant Chief Officers forthcoming Member training sessions. consider how best to take this forward. He also highlighted that the request from the Town Clerk to all Ward Deputies seeking their nominations on to Ward Committees states that Members of the Planning & Transportation Committee are expected to undertake regular training.

4 23 June 2020 Barbican and Golden Lane Conservation Area UPDATE: (17 Nov 2020): It was reported that the 14 July 2020 SPD SPD would now be going to the next meetings of 8 Sept 2020 the Barbican Centre Board, the Barbican 6 Oct 2020 Interim Chief Planning Officer and Residential Cttee and the Barbican Estate 27 Oct 2020 Development Director Residents Consultation Cttee for their input before 17 Nov 2021 coming to this Cttee in February 2021. Golden 15 Dec 2021 A Member highlighted that a Conservation Lane and Tudor Rose Court residents would also Management Plan was still awaited for this area in be consulted on the document prior to it being the form of a Supplementary Planning Document. presented to this Committee He added that this was originally approved by this Committee in October 2018 and that he had To be completed: SPD to Committee in requested an update on progress on several February 2021. occasions since. He asked that this also now be Page 127 Page included within the list of Outstanding Actions so that it was not lost sight of entirely.

5. 15 Dec 2021 Anonymisation of Members in Committee The Town Clerk undertook to provide the Minutes Committee with a report on the pros and cons of this suggestion and also to look into practice Town Clerk across other local authorities. It was also suggested that this matter would need to be A Member requested that the minutes of this brought to the attention of the Policy and Committee should no longer anonymise Members Resources Committee in due course given that it and should, instead, record the names of those went against the convention set down by them making comments and also record how individual some time ago for all Corporation Committees. Members had voted where rollcall votes were taken. To be completed: Report to Committee by February 2021.

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT 26/11/2020 – 11/12/2020

Availability Code Name Time Availability Blackfriars Bridge, OOS 0.00% 0924 Duchess Walk Public Lift CL24 0 00:00 100% 0931 Baynard House Car Park SC6458796 0 00:00 100% 0944 London Wall Down Escalator SC6458958 0 00:00 100% 0945 London Wall Up Escalator SC6458959 0 00:00 100% 0976 Pilgrim Street SC6458969 0 00:00 100% 0978 Atlantic House SC6458966 0 00:00 100% 7921 Little Britain SC6458967 0 00:00 100% 7960 London Wall West SC6458965 0 00:00 100% 7963 London Wall East SC6458964 0 00:00 100% Page 129 Page 7997 33 King Williams Street SC6462850 0 00:00 100% 7998 Tower Place Public Lift SC6458962 0 00:00 100% 7999 Tower Place Scenic Lift SC6458963 0 00:00 100% 7740 Moor House SC6458968 0 07:43 97.94% Millennium Bridge Inclinator, 82.20% 0916 Glass South Tower SC6459244 0 08:25 97.76% 7345 Speed House Public Lift SC6459146 0 11:06 97.04%

0929 Millennium Bridge Inclinator SC6459245 2 18:51 Agenda Item 9 Millennium Bridge Inclinator Blackfriars Bridge 82.20% 7964 Blackfriars Bridge SC6462771 16 00:00 0.00%

Points to Note:

• There are 17 Public Lifts/Escalators in the City of London estate. The report below contains details of the 2 - public escalator/lifts that were out of service more than 95% of the time. • The report was created on 14 December 2020 and subsequently since this time the public lifts or escalators may have experienced further breakdowns which will be conveyed in the next report. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT 26/11/2020 – 11/12/2020

Location Status % of time in service Number of times Period Not in Use Comments as of Between reported Between Between Where the service is less than 95% 11/12/2020 26/11/2020 26/11/2020 26/11/2020 and and and 11/12/2020 11/12/2020 11/12/2020

Millennium Bridge In service 82.20% 1 68 hours Unfortunately, the Inclinator has been out of Inclinator service due to vandalism of the doors, SC6459245 replacement parts were required, and the Inclinator was returned to service on the 11th December 2020.

Page 130 Page Blackfriars Bridge Out of service 0% 1 384 hours Lift out of service for the whole reporting period SC6462771 due to a Safety Improvement Project. Expected return to service date is 18th December 2020.

Agenda Item 10

Committee(s) Dated:

Planning and Transportation 5th January 2021

Subject: Public Delegated decisions of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

Report of: For Information Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

Summary

Pursuant to the instructions of your Committee, I attach for your information a list detailing development and advertisement applications determined by the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director or those so authorised under their delegated powers since my report to the last meeting.

In the time since the last report to Planning & Transportation Committee Sixteen (16) matters have been dealt with under delegated powers. Eight (8) relate to conditions of previously approved schemes, One (1) application for Listed Building Consent, and Two (2) applications for Advertisement Consent. Five (5) Full applications and including One (1) Change of Use and 22.9 sq.m floorspace created.

Page 131 Any questions of detail arising from these reports can be sent to [email protected].

Details of Decisions

Registered Address Proposal Decision & Applicant/ Agent Plan Number & Date of Name Ward Decision

20/00333/MDC Bevis Marks Submission of details Approved S & P Sephardi Synagogue of abutment between Community Aldgate Heneage synagogue and 08.12.2020 Lane annexe, details of London treatment of the EC3A 5DQ basement vault, (excluding foundation and cabinet design),details of all ground level surfaces within the courtyard, all roof level excrescences, details of all CCTV camera locations specification of ramp and entrance and details of internal ramps, handrails, staircases, lifts, door openings, works to the existing seating and doors pursuant to conditions 5 b, f in part (excluding foundation detail), i, k, l, m of planning permission dated 7 June 2019 (19/00141/FULL ) and conditions 4 c, d, e, f in part (excluding foundation detail), i, k, l, m of listed building consent dated 7 June 2019 (19/00142/LBC).

Page 132 20/00368/MDC Bevis Marks Submission of details Approved S & P Sephardi Synagogue of mechanical services Community Aldgate Heneage layout; location and 08.12.2020 Lane appearance of new London plant pursuant to EC3A 5DQ conditions 5 (g), (h) of planning permission dated 7 June 2019 (19/00141/FULL ) and conditions 4 (g) and (h) of listed building consent dated 7 June 2019 (19/00142/LBC).

20/00799/MDC Bevis Marks Submission of details Approved Bevis Marks Synagogue of a method statement Synagogue Aldgate Heneage for protecting 03.12.2020 Heritage Lane neighbours from dust Foundation London and noise measures EC3A 5DQ pursuant to conditions 2 of planning permission dated 7 June 2019 (19/00141/FULL).

20/00600/FULL 9A Artillery Erection of roof Approved Mr Sami Boulis Lane extension to extend Bishopsgate London existing dwelling. 10.12.2020 E1 7LP 20/00778/MDC Umi House Submission of details Approved Stirling Securities 4 - 10 of: particulars and Ltd Bishopsgate Artillery samples of the 10.12.2020 Lane materials to be used London on all external faces of E1 7LS the building; details of new windows including the fritted glass and doors including reveals; details of the dormers including drainage; details of blue roofs; details of green wall and maintenance including safe access pursuant to condition 14 (parts a, b, c, d, e) of planning permission 19/00796/FULL dated 19 December 2019.

Page 133 20/00920/PODC 150 Submission of the Approved UOL Group Ltd Bishopsgate Local Training Skills Bishopsgate London and Job Brokerage 08.12.2020 EC2M 4AF Strategy (End Use) pursuant to Schedule 1 Paragraph 3.3 of the Section 106 Agreement dated 01 February 2017 (Planning Application Reference 14/01151/FULL as amended by 17/00623/FULL).

20/00772/ADVT 98 St Paul's Installation and display Approved The Royal Bank of Churchyard of one non-illuminated Scotland Bread Street London acrylic sign measuring 03.12.2020 EC4M 8BU 1.5m high by 1m wide at ground floor level.

20/00763/LBC 321 Internal refurbishment Approved Mr & Mrs John & Cromwell including removal and Betty Bryden Cripplegate Tower installation of sections 08.12.2020 Barbican of internal walls, London installation of EC2Y 8NB replacement internal doors.

20/00809/ADVT 35 Old Installation and display Approved D&D London Bailey of: (i) one internally Farringdon London illuminated fascia sign 03.12.2020 Within EC4M 7AU measuring 0.24m high by 2.6m wide at a height above ground of 2.4m; and (ii) one non- illuminated fascia sign measuring 1.985m high by 0.45m wide at a height above ground of 0.21m.

20/00810/FULL From Change of use from Approved Helical Lindsey retail (Class A1/A2/A3) Farringdon Street To to office. 10.12.2020 Within Hayne Street Long Lane London EC1M 6JH

Page 134 20/00917/MDC 16 Old Submission of window Approved Capital Treasure Bailey details pursuant to the Investments Farringdon London discharge of condition 10.12.2020 Limited Within EC4M 7EG 6 parts (a) and (b) of planning permission reference 18/00137/FULL dated 8th October 2018.

20/00805/MDC 3-5 Norwich BREEAM Post- Approved Scopus Holdings Street Construction Stage Ltd Farringdon London Report and Final 10.12.2020 Without EC4A 1EJ BREEAM Certificate pursuant to condition 14 of planning permission 17/01273/FULL dated 26 October 2018.

20/00714/MDC 3 St Helen's Submission of a Approved The Leathersellers Place Contaminated Land Company Lime Street London Assessment pursuant 03.12.2020 EC3A 6AB to condition 6 of planning permission dated 8th October 2019 (18/01336/FULMAJ).

20/00666/FULL Statue Replacement of a Approved Mr Nilojan House 53 - window on the rear Tharmarajah Portsoken 54 Aldgate elevation of the rear 08.12.2020 High Street extension with an London extract louvre. EC3N 1AL

20/00834/FULL 1 America Replacement of Approved Britel Investment Square existing condenser unit Fund Management Tower London with two new 08.12.2020 EC3N 2LB condenser units behind parapet wall on 6th floor flat roof area and installation of a weather louvre at 6th floor level.

20/00758/FULL 8 Old Jewry Installation and Approved St. James's Place London replacement of two Plc Walbrook EC2R 8DN existing dry air coolers 10.12.2020 at roof level.

Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 136 Agenda Item 11

Committee(s) Dated:

Planning and Transportation 5th January 2021

Subject: Public Valid planning applications received by Department of the Built Environment

Report of: For Information Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

Summary

Pursuant to the instructions of your Committee, I attach for your information a list detailing development applications received by the Department of the Built Environment since my report to the last meeting.

Any questions of detail arising from these reports can be sent to [email protected].

Details of Valid Applications

Application Address Proposal Date of Applicant/ Number & Ward Validation Agent name 20/00859/FULL 6 - 9 Eldon Temporary change 07/12/2020 Broadgate Bishopsgate Street, of use of basement, Eldon London, part ground and first Properties EC2M 7LS floor level from office Limited (Class E) to use as construction welfare facilities (Sui Generis) and associated cycle parking facilities.

20/00912/FULL Fishmongers' Installation of new 07/12/2020 The Bridge And Bridge Hall, London air-handling plant & Fishmongers' Without Bridge, screen on the flat Company London, roofscape of the EC4R 9EL south west extension, as set out in the accompanying Design & Access Statement

20/00925/FULL Boswell Mansard roof 19/11/2020 Artillery Castle Baynard House, 8 - 9 extension to enlarge Partnership Gough the existing balcony Square, on the south elevation at fifth floor

Page 137 London, level, extension and EC4A 3DG replacement of balustrade and other associated works. 20/00968/FULL 1 Bow Lane, New entrance door 08/12/2020 Avenuepoint Cordwainer London, to upper offices on Ltd EC4M 9EE east elevation fronting Bow Lane, including aluminium cladding and integrated mailboxes; and replacement mechanical plant equipment to main roof adjacent to Grade I Listed St Mary Le Bow.

20/00837/FULL Chancery Alterations to the 28/10/2020 Chancery Farringdon House, 53 - existing main House Without 64 Chancery entrance on London Lane, London, Chancery Lane, Nominee 1 WC2A 1QS lowering of the Limited existing cills to windows within the west elevation of the building and replacement larger windows and replacement of the existing London Silver Vaults entrance canopy.

20/00932/FULMAJ Snow Hill External and internal 20/11/2020 Whitbread Farringdon Police Station, alterations together Group Plc Without 5 Snow Hill, with demolition and London, new build associated EC1A 2DP with the change of use of existing building from police station (sui generis) to hotel with ancillary uses (Class C1) including: (i) refurbishment of retained facades to Snow Hill and Cock Lane; (ii) partial demolition, rebuilding and

Page 138 extension to provide a building ranging from 6 to 8 storeys, plus new plant at roof level; (iii) extension of existing sub-basement; (iv) provision of cycle storage; (v) highway works; (vi) greening and other ancillary works.

20/00957/FULL Atlantic House Retention of nine 30/11/2020 Hogan Farringdon , 50 Holborn CCTV cameras Lovells Without Viaduct, installed including London, five cameras in new EC1A 2FG locations and the replacement of four cameras in existing locations.

20/00909/FULL Chancery Alterations to the 08/12/2020 Chancery Farringdon House, 53 - existing car park to House Without 64 Chancery form a London Lane, London, pedestrianised Nominee 1 WC2A 1QS landscape including Limited the provision of new access gates, external lighting and planting. (ii) Alterations to existing light wells at lower ground floor level including new decking, planters and external lighting. (iii) Alterations to existing ground floor and lower ground floor windows to lower existing cill heights and replacement with larger windows and doors.

Page 139 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 140 Agenda Item 12

Committee(s) Date(s): Planning and Transportation Committee 5 January 2021 Subject: Public Report of Action Taken Report of: For Information Town Clerk Report author: Gemma Stokley, Town Clerk’s Department

Summary

This report advises Members of action taken by the Town Clerk since the last formal meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, in accordance with Standing Order Nos. 41(a) and (b).

Recommendation:

• That Members note the report.

Main Report

1. Since the last formal meeting of the Committee, approval was given by the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, for the following decisions to be made under Standing Order Nos 41(a) and (b).:

Urgency Authority – Concessionary Parking for frontline NHS & other Key Care Workers, and City Police during period of Tier 3 Restrictions in London [16 December 2020]

2. During the first national lockdown, on 23 March 2020, parking concessions for key workers were put in place in the City. The concessions were limited to those providing essential public front line services such as those working in the NHS and police.

3. A robust assessment process was put in place from the commencement of lockdown and concessions continued, with the approval of the Town Clerk and Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee, until 31 August 2020. The approach taken by the City was broadly in line with that adopted by other local authorities and took into account advice provided by Government and London Councils. The same concessions were granted once again during the second national lockdown on 5 November 2020 and those came to an end on 2 December 2020.

4. Consideration was then given to providing free parking in the car parks for frontline NHS and care workers e.g. those at Barts Hospital as London moves into Tier 3 restrictions. In addition, City Police requested a continuation of their parking concession beyond 1 January 2021. This was supported by both the Bronze & Silver officer emergency command groups, subject to Members’ approval.

Page 141 5. The Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee, therefore agreed that free parking in DBE car parks be provided for frontline NHS staff and care workers, and that the current concession for City Police is extended beyond 1 January 2021 whilst London is subject to Tier 3 restrictions. Barts Hospital is likely to require 105 free season tickets (at an estimated cost of £9,000 at residential rate). This need is based on the vulnerability of patients with immune deficiency such as cancer patients, and accordingly staff are advised to avoid public transport wherever possible to minimise the risk of cross infection. City Police parking is required to facilitate shift working for officers as public transport isn’t running to a normal time-table, and heightened activity due to protests in London and non-compliance with COVID 19 social distancing requirements are expected.

6. There is sufficient capacity within the car parks but because of the possibility that parking space within Smithfield car park may be limited in the weeks leading up to Christmas (due to an increased number of customers), it is suggested that this concession also extends to other DBE car parks such as London Wall and Minories.

7. This decision required urgent approval so that season tickets could be processed and issued by 16 December 2020 in order to be in place at the commencement of Tier 3 restrictions in London.

Gemma Stokley Town Clerk’s Department E: [email protected]

Page 142 Agenda Item 16 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 145 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank