planning report PDU/0044b/01 27 January 2009 20 in the City of planning application no. 08/01061/FULMAJ

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Proposal for a 38-storey and 5 storey building with a total floorspace of 100,008 square metres, of which 80,048 square metres is for office use (Use Class B1) within the tall building. Additional uses comprise retail (use class A1), cafe / restaurant (use class A3 / A4), a publicly accessible sky garden (use class D1) and basement servicing and car parking.

The applicant The applicant is The Real Property Company Ltd, and the architect is Rafael Viñoly Architects.

Strategic issues The proposed development will support London’s role as a World City through the provision of high quality office accommodation with a unique, high quality design in the strategically important Central Activities Zone (CAZ).

The scheme, although a full planning application, represents relatively minor changes to a planning application for a similar proposal, which was considered and supported by the Secretary of State. This decision established the acceptability of a tall building in this location, and the acceptability of the design on its own merits in terms of potential impact on strategic views to St. Paul’s Cathedral, and to and from the World Heritage Site. The changes to the scheme do not alter the impact on these views.

The scheme does not meet the highest standards of inclusive design and the applicant should address this to the satisfaction of the Corporation.

The scheme will increase office floorspace in the CAZ and have an impact on the public transport network. The scheme is required to make a contribution based on this uplift towards as well as maintain its commitment to previous section 106 contribution. An enhanced contribution in line with the CAZ mixed use policy should be secured by the Corporation.

Recommendation That the City of London Corporation be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 59 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 61 of this report could address these deficiencies.

page 1 Context

1 On 19 December 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from the City of London Corporation notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 30 January 2009 to provide the Corporation with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

2 The application is referable under Category 1B and 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings in the City of London and with a total floorspace of more than 100,000 square metres,” and “Development (a) which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated; and (b) comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace for a use falling within class B1 (business) and class D1 (non- residential institutions in the Use Classes Order.”

3 Once the Corporation has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Corporation to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

5 The site is located in the heart of the City’s commercial district close to the historic and occupies a prominent position on the south side of Fenchurch Street. The site occupies the majority of an island block bounded by Fenchurch Street, properties fronting onto to the south, Philpot Lane to the west and Rood Lane to the east.

6 The site is within the Central Activities Zone, as defined by the London Plan. It is located just outside the Eastcheap Conservation Area and the Leadenhall Market Conservation Area is to the north. A number of listed buildings are located in the immediate area including the Grade I listed Church to the south-east of the site.

7 The site is located between Fenchurch Street and Eastcheap, and lies 150 metres east of (A10) which is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The site has a public transport accessibility level of 6, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 is most accessible. Monument Underground is approximately 300 metres from the site with Bank, Cannon St and Tower Hill underground stations within 550 metres, providing services to District & Circle, Northern, Central and Waterloo & City line Underground services as well as access to the DLR. A total of 13 bus routes serve the surrounding area.

Details of the proposal

8 The planning application is for the following uses and floorspaces:

Main building

• Office (use class B1) - 80,048 sq.m.

page 2 • Retail within the skygarden (use class A1) – 729 sq.m.

• Ground floor retail and skygarden entrance (use classes A1 and D1) – 281 sq.m.

• Skygarden and circulation – 3,240 sq.m. (+ terrace 269 sq.m.)

• Ancillary plant, vehicular access, servicing and parking – 12,705 sq.m.

Annex building

• Cafe / restaurant / drinking establishment (use class A3/A4) – 448 sq.m.

• Ancillary plant, vehicular access, servicing and parking – 2,288 sq.m.

9 Planning permission has been granted and the consent implemented for a similar scheme as set out in the case history below. This scheme increases the gross external floor area from 94,379 square metres to 100,008 square metres, an uplift as 5,629 square metres. Although this scheme represents a full planning application, it contains the following changes to the consented scheme:

• Office floorspace – The introduction of an additional floor of office at level 34 and the replacement of plant at level three with an office floor. The total net increase in internal floorspace is 6,795 sq.m.

• East and west facades – Reduction in length of external fins by 150 mm and reduction in distance between fins and glazing by 100mm.

• South facade – Inclusion of double glazing.

• Fins – A reduction in the number of external structural fins from 31 to 29 on the east and west facades.

• Basement – A full level of basement at basement level two, and rearrangement of basement level one to accommodate plant formerly on levels three and the skygarden.

• Floor to floor heights – An increase in floor-to-floor heights from 3.685 metres to 3.85 metres.

• Skygarden lift – An additional shuttle lift (increase from one to two).

• Double deck lift arrangement – A reduction in plan area of lift cores, the introduction of a mezzanine level in the double-height lobby to introduce double-deck lifts.

• Mechanical plant – Relocation of mechanical plant at level three to the basement and Annex building; reduction in height of level two plant storey.

• Fenchurch Street entrance, retail unit and skygarden entrance – reconfiguration of the retail unit and combination of retail unit with skygarden entrance, creating a larger external public space.

• Annex building – Increase in height to provide one and a half floors to accommodate plant relocated from the tower. The height is equivalent to a consented planning application in July 2008, however, the footprint of the building is extended marginally northwards as part of this application.

page 3 Case history

10 Planning permission for a similar scheme was granted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This permission has been implemented.

11 This scheme comprised a 39 storey building with a total of 94,379 square metres of office floorspace (gross external area), retail use at ground, mezzanine and basement levels, a 35th floor level and above “Skygarden” for use for uses within Class D1 (non-residential institution), class A3/A4 (restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment) and private dining and similar functions. The scheme also comprises a 3 storey building for restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment and office use and a publicly accessible “pocket park” on the ground level.

12 The City of London Corporation notified the Mayor of the scheme on 16 March 2006. The former Mayor considered the scheme on 21 June 2006 (report PDU/0044a/01) and revisions following, among other measures, a reduction in height and floorspace on 6 September 2006(report PDU/0044b/02). He considered that the principle of a tall building in the location was welcome, however, a more significant contribution to public transport mitigation was required.

13 On 19 September 2006, the City resolved to grant planning permission and on 17 October 2006 the former Mayor decided that he was not minded to direct refusal after the applicant addressed outstanding concerns, and that the Corporation could determine the application itself, subject to any action the Secretary of State may wish to take. On 22 November 2006 the Secretary of State called in the application for determination at a public local inquiry.

14 On 7 July 2007 the Secretary of State granted planning permission for the above scheme and, having considered the Inspector’s report following the inquiry, made the following judgments. These are material to the consideration of the present application and carry considerable weight.

Appropriateness of a tall building in this location

15 The site is appropriate, in principle, for a building of the height proposed and should be considered on its merits.

Impact on the skyline and views of St. Paul’s

16 The proposal would add interest to the City skyline enhancing many views, and would not have any adverse effect on views of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Impact on Tower of London World Heritage Site

17 Limited views of the proposal from within the Tower would be a long way from overwhelming the Tower physically. The proposal would not cause any significant harm to the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage site or to views from the Tower.

Impact on nearby listed buildings and conservation areas

18 The setting of some listed buildings and conservation areas would be harmed by the proposal intruding into their backdrops, however, the number of historic assets affected would be relatively few and the harm would be slight.

Design

19 The quality of the design would make a significant contribution to London’s architecture and reinforce the distinctiveness that other tall schemes have contributed to the City skyline. The

page 4 skygarden, and to a lesser extent the pocket park, would be a significant benefit of the scheme. The proposal would comply with Government policy advice on the need for good design, including the need for design to be appropriate to its context.

Other matters

20 The proposal would be in accordance with policy at all levels that seeks a continuous supply of office accommodation in London but that any harm to heritage assets would not be overridden by an economic argument in favour of the proposal. The sustainability and energy strategies are acceptable on the basis that they are supported by the [former] Mayor, the City as local planning authority, and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

21 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

• Economic development London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy • World city role London Plan • Urban design London Plan; PPS1 • Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; • Crossrail draft London Plan alterations; draft Crossrail SPG • Parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13 • Retail London Plan; PPS6; PPG13 • Employment London Plan; PPG4; draft PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG • Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) • Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM) • Tall buildings/views London Plan; View Management Framework SPG • Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG • Historic Environment London Plan; PPG15

22 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2002 City of London Corporation Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

23 The following are also relevant material considerations: • The City of London Corporation Core Strategy Preferred Options 2007 • Planning permission dated 7 July 2007 (see Case History), which has now been implemented. This permission, the reasons and policy judgements given in the Secretary of State’s letter dated 7 July 2007 and the accompanying report dated 11 May 2007 are material considerations of substantial weight. Economic development and world city role

24 The London Plan aims to develop London’s economy as one of the three world cities (policy 3B.1). In doing so it seeks a range of workspaces for different businesses but in particular looks to

page 5 deliver high quality office space for the finance and business services sector. Policy 3B.2 aims to increase and enhance the quality and flexibility of London’s office market offer.

25 The scheme is consistent with these policies. The building is targeted at major occupiers in the international banking and financial services and business sectors. In particular the proposed amendments will increase the amount of floorspace available, continue to provide large and flexible floorplates and through the increase in the floor-to-floor heights, will allow for enhanced services specifications. Mix of uses

26 Where there are proposals to increase office floorspace, the London Plan (policy 5G.3) expects a mix of uses on site to be provided within the CAZ, unless there is clear conflict between policy priorities in the Plan in which case an off-site contribution may be acceptable. The former Mayor, and subsequently the Secretary of State accepted the principle of an off-site contribution in this instance. Given the principles and contribution established for the existing consent the applicant should provide, and the Corporation should ensure it is satisfied with an additional contribution on the uplift in this particular instance. Design

27 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage, views, and the Blue Ribbon Network.

28 This proposal is for slight amendments to an existing permission for a tower within the Eastern Cluster as indicated in the Corporation’s 2002 Unitary Development Plan. The applicant proposes to make changes to the basement, ground floor and roof garden layouts, reduce the number of external vertical louvres on the flank elevations, to increase the floor to floor heights for the consented storeys, and to add an additional floor of office accommodation, all within the existing building envelope.

29 Many of the internal changes result in a more efficient and logical layout and are welcomed. Layouts at basement level should ensure that sufficient clearance space for any blue badge car parking is provided. The changes at ground level include the incorporation of the retail space into the fabric of the building, providing for a more open public space at the base/entrance to the building.

30 The proposed refinements to the building envelope result in slight changes silhouette of the building as seen from the front; it will appear in some views to be more ‘curvaceous.’ Fewer louvres or long fins are required than originally proposed, and this slightly lightens the appearance of the cladding.

31 Revisions to the landscaping at ground level have been proposed to address concerns with regards to wind conditions, in the introduction of several trees and the resulting reduction in step width to the ‘pocket park’ between the main tower and the annex building. The revisions to the landscaping plan for the ‘skygarden’ are beneficial, particularly with regards to improvements relating to the landscaping concept and relocation of plant and other improvements to the circulation and publicly accessible areas. The applicants are working with to create a

page 6 design that is robust and appropriate to the location. Concerns are raised regarding the accessibility and degree to which the proposal meets the highest standards of inclusive design and these are explained in greater detail below.

32 The incorporation of an additional storey, the increase in floor to floor heights and the reconfiguration of the levels within the sky garden all have a cumulative impact of reducing the floor to ceiling height of the sky garden from approximately 11.9 metres to 9.3 metres, representing a reduction of approximately 20%. The visual impact of this change is to diminish the sense of a ‘grand volume’ of the sky garden, which is disappointing, as it results in a less impressive volume as seen in views from the Monument Viewing Gallery and from .

33 The basic principles of the proposal, however, have not been affected by these revisions and as such the proposal is consistent with London Plan policies on urban design.

Inclusive design

34 The London Plan requires development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion and sets out a series of principles that should be incorporated into early design considerations (policy 4B.5).

35 The applicant has submitted information within the design and access statement setting out its approach to access and inclusive design. This particular aspect, although it has consent in principle has been worked up in greater detail, most notably for the Skygarden. Given the potential as a high profile public destination is a matter that should be key to this particular application.

36 Overall, the scheme is disappointing and appears to focus on meeting the minimum requirements of building regulations part M. This does not address specific potential difficulties that could be faced by particular users and the applicant should, in discussion with the Corporation and GLA access officers, reconsider the following three areas:

• Access into the ‘pocket park’ for wheelchair users and visually impaired people.

• Access to offices for people who cannot use escalators.

• Access to and within the Skygarden.

37 Wheelchair users approaching from Eastcheap will be required to go up to Fenchurch Street and either around the building on a narrow path or through the building to access the pocket park, which is only accessible otherwise by irregular shaped, flared steps. The consented scheme has a condition which requires wheelchair access ramps to be provided as closely as possible to the steps to the open space at ground level and the roof garden. The two proposed routes around the edge of the building are not satisfactory, with a width of 1m , although the applicant has indicated these will be increased to 1.2 metres. This does not allow for any passing places and at least 1.8metres, preferably 2 metres would be needed. An alternative route would be to go through the building, but the success of this would be dependent on legibility, i.e. whether the design and management of the building meant that it was a clear route without the need for signs, and it would not provide a solution that meets inclusive design principles. Alternative accessible routes in the vicinity of the stairs should therefore be further investigated.

38 The proposal that anyone who cannot use escalators must make special arrangements to access the lifts at ground floor level does not meet inclusive design principles. In addition, the arrangements for using lifts without controls within the lift car could be problematic for visually impaired people and those with restricted mobility. The applicant should ensure that a disability

page 7 impact assessment of the lift arrangements is undertaken and the City should ensure that any appropriate recommendations are incorporated in revisions.

39 The proposed skygarden arrangements raise a number of potential issues, some of which need to be addressed at the application stage and then accompanied by a commitment to produce a visitor management plan that takes full account of the needs of disabled people. The key concern is how the configuration of and amount of space allocated for the circulation of people will affect disabled people. Working from the ground floor upwards, the design of the security area should allow for groups of wheelchair users visiting the public skygarden and have suitable facilities such as accessible toilets (including a ‘changing places’ toilet), seats and sufficient space for queuing. The applicant should confirm that the lifts are at least 16-person if not larger. Once in the skygarden, the ramps taking people down to the mezzanine and terrace, at 1 in 15, will be very challenging for many disabled people and the turning space at each of the landings does not allow any resting points that do not block the route for other users of the stairs. A lift within the garden providing access between all three levels should be provided in addition to the ramps and steps. Once at the terrace, the use of revolving doors to access the roof terrace presents a barrier to wheelchair users and will need to be reconsidered.

40 Overall, the applicant should reconsider the detailed design of routes from street level to and within the publicly accessible areas and ensure that they meet the highest standard of inclusive design rather than just the minimum requirements of building regulations. The Corporation should be satisfied that the scheme meets the highest standard of inclusive design and addresses detailed design issues either through changes or appropriate conditions. Climate change

41 The London Plan requires development to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change (policy 4A.1). The applicant has submitted an energy strategy which shows that the modelled baseline emissions are 5,400 tonnes carbon dioxide per annum.

42 A range of energy efficient design measures are proposed that reduce emissions by 21% beyond building regulations 2006. Taking into account energy not covered by building regulations the total carbon dioxide reduction from energy efficiency measures is 14.4%.

43 The applicant is also proposing to installed combined cooling, heat and power (tri- generation) plant to meet in particular a proportion of the electricity and cooling demands. For this purpose, 2 alternatives have been proposed:

• 400 kWe gas fired fuel cell (10% CO2 saving).

• 1600 kWe gas fired engine, (9 % CO2saving). 44 The plant space required to accommodate the plant indicated has been satisfactorily estimated and described in the energy strategy

45 In relation to the use of renewable energy systems, the applicant has identified space of approximately 500 square metres that could be used to install photovoltaics. The use of PV would help contribute a further 0.4% CO2. 46 The original scheme was consistent with the 2004 London Plan energy policies and supported the then draft Further Alterations to the London Plan. These measures were negotiated in close discussion with GLA officers and the applicant’s continued work on the potential of fuel cell technology is particularly welcome.

page 8 47 The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector’s conclusion that, given the GLA and Corporation supported the environmental measures, the scheme was acceptable against energy policies.

48 The retained approach is consistent with the revised energy hierarchy in the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004). The design reduces energy demand beyond minimum building regulations requirements, prioritises decentralised energy, particularly by seeking to pioneer the use of fuel cell technology in a high profile office development, and incorporates complementary renewable energy technology in the form of photovoltaics. The use of combined heat and power technology for electricity, heating and cooling (either fuel cell or conventional CCHP) limits the technical potential for other renewable energy technologies in this instance, however, the scheme is consistent with the energy hierarchy. The City should ensure that the strategy is secured as part of any planning permission. Transport

49 The proposed uplift in office space (net internal area) by approximately 6,795 square metres will result in an additional 330 employee trips in the AM peak period. When considered cumulatively TfL expects this to have an impact on local transport services and infrastructure.

50 A total of 5 car parking spaces have been proposed at basement level for disabled use. This level of parking welcomed as it is in line with London Plan policy 3C.23 ‘Parking Strategy’.

51 A total of 400 cycle parking spaces have been proposed. TfL welcomes this level of provision as it is in line with the London Cycle Network Design Standards and complies with London Plan policy 3C.22 ‘Improving conditions for cycling’. In addition to this TfL expects the developer to provide adequate ‘on-street’ cycle parking for couriers/short-stay visitors to the building.

52 A servicing management plan has been secured as part of the Section 106 agreement; this is welcomed and is in line with London Plan policy 3C.25 ‘Freight strategy’.

53 As part of the extant planning application and Section 106 agreement the developer has committed to provide a contribution towards transport improvements within the vicinity of the site in line with policy 6A.4 of the London Plan. The total committed contribution is £1,196 million apportioned amongst the three projects outlined above as follows:

• £246,000 towards pedestrian improvements at Eastcheap/Fish Hill Street/Gracechurch Streets. • £40,000 for bus initiative improvements. • £910,000 towards London Underground’s Bank Congestion Relief and Step Free Access proposals.

54 Policy 3C.12A of the Proposed London Plan Alterations states that “In view of the strategic regional importance of Crossrail to London’s economic regeneration and development, developments which contribute to the transport needs that the project will wholly or partly address will be required to contribute towards its funding through the use of planning obligations, in accordance with relevant legislation and policy guidance”. This is underpinned by London Plan Policy 6A.4 (and as amended in the Proposed London Plan Alterations), which establishes the strategic priorities for planning obligations. This states that affordable housing and transport should generally be given the highest importance.

page 9 55 Paragraph 4.9 of the SPG states that “…contributions should be sought in respect of office development in the Central Activities Zone and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs which involves a net increase in office floorspace of more than 500 sq.m.”. Using the methodology within the SPG, the development would be expected to contribute £1,449,373.

56 TfL expects the applicant to carry forward its commitment from the extant permission and provide a contribution on the uplift in line with London Plan Policy 6A.4 recognising Crossrail as a strategic priority. TfL would welcome further discussions in respect of this. Local planning authority’s position

57 Officers are minded to approve the application, subject to further work on inclusive design. Legal considerations

58 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Corporation must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Corporation under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

59 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

60 London Plan policies on employment, London’s world city role, design, climate change and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

• Employment: The scheme, including changes from the consented application, will provide flexible high quality office space. • World city role: The scheme will provide high quality employment space and a publicly accessible Skygarden within the Central Activities Zone.

• Mix of uses: The principle of off-site contributions to affordable housing in line with policies 3B.3 and 5G.3 of the London plan has been established and the scheme is expected to make a further contribution.

• Design: The revisions to the scheme, when considered alongside the consented planning application, do not raise any new strategic issues in terms of tall buildings or impact on strategic views and the Tower of London World Heritage Site. However, the changes and further detailed design for the Skygarden are not consistent with inclusive design principles.

page 10 • Energy: The scheme is consistent with London Plan energy policy.

• Transport: As a result of the uplift in office floorspace, the scheme will need to commit to contributions in line with London Plan policy, which should reflect the strategic priority for the delivery of Crossrail.

61 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan.

62 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

• Mix of uses: Commit to improved contributions towards off-site affordable housing in discussion with the Corporation. • Inclusive design: Revise and clarify the designs for access to and circulation through the ‘pocket park’ and the Skygarden. • Transport: A contribution to Crossrail is required in discussion with Transport for London.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Planning Frameworks) 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Tom Carpen, Case Officer 020 7983 6590 email [email protected]

page 11