planning report GLA/4417/02 13 August 2018 100, 106-107 Leadenhall Street in the City of London planning application no. 18/00152/FULEIA

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

The proposal Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a ground plus 56 storey building (263.4 metres AOD) for office use, retail use at lower levels, a publicly accessible viewing gallery and restaurant/bar at levels 55/56.

The applicant The applicant is Frontier Dragon Ltd, and the architects are Skidmore, Ownings and Merrill LLP.

Key dates Pre- application meeting: 18 October 2017 Stage 1 report: 16 April 2018 City of London Corporation Committee meeting: 10 July 2018

Strategic issues update Mix of uses: The publicly accessible viewing gallery has been secured. Urban Design: Issues regarding street scene and public realm have been addressed. Historic Environment: The development would not compromise the ability to appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites and would not cause harm to the historic environment. Transport: Conditions and obligations secured including circa £12 million contribution to Crossrail. Climate change: outstanding issues resolved.

The Council’s decision In this instance the City of London Corporation has resolved to grant planning permission.

Recommendation That the City of London be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

page 1

Context

1 On 19 March 2018 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. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• 1B(c): ‘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 100,000 square metres’.

• 1C(c):’ Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of more than 150 metres highs and is within the City of London’.

2 On 16 April 2018 the Mayor considered planning report GLA/4417/01, and subsequently advised the City of London Corporation that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 57 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address those deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 10 July 2018, the City of London Corporation resolved to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and conclusion of a Section 106 agreement. The Corporation advised the Mayor of this decision on 01 August 2018. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged; direct the Corporation under Article 6 to refuse the application; or, issue a direction to the Corporation under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application (and any connected application). The Mayor has until 15 August 2018 to notify the Corporation of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The Mayor’s decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Consultation stage issues summary

6 At the initial consultation stage, the City of London was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out below. The Corporation was advised that the resolution of these issues could lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan.

• Principle of development: The proposed development would respond to established demand for office space within the CAZ, and would support London’s continuing function as a World City. It is therefore strongly supported in accordance with London Plan and draft London Plan Policies. The publicly accessible viewing gallery on levels 55 and 56 must be secured. • Design: This is an appropriate location for a tall building and the high architectural quality proposed is fitting for a development of this scale and prominence. Further detail is nevertheless required regarding the elevational treatment of lower floors and public connections around the site.

page 2

• Strategic Views: The development would reinforce and enhance the characteristics of strategic views through an improved consolidation of the City’s eastern cluster and complies with London Plan Policy 7.12 and Policies HC3 and HC4 of the draft London Plan. • Historic Environment: The development would not compromise the ability to appreciate the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites and would not cause harm to the historic environment. Accordingly, the application complies with London Plan Policies 7.8, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12 and draft London Plan Policies HC1, HC2 and HC3. • Energy: The applicant must explore the potential for connection to the City 2 district heat network. Additional information relating to the light transmittance of the proposed glazing, the use of two plant rooms as opposed to one and the full ‘be lean’ and ‘be green’ BRUKL sheets must be submitted. this further information must be submitted before the proposals can be considered acceptable and the carbon dioxide savings verified. • Transport: Further information is required on cycle parking. Conditions and Section 106 obligations are required to secure the following; formal consultation of TfL on the Section 278 agreement; post occupation trip generation monitoring contribution; Crossrail contribution; cycling improvements contribution; legible London Signage contribution; Cycle Hire contribution; public realm access, restrictions on delivery and servicing times; 24-hour access to blue badge parking; details of cycle parking; travel plan; delivery and servicing plan; and construction and logistics plan. Strategic planning policy and guidance update

7 In July 2018, the Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework. Update

8 Since Stage 1, GLA officers have reviewed further information, and engaged in discussions with the City of London Corporation and the applicant with a view to addressing the above matters. Furthermore, as part of the City of London’s draft decision on the case, various planning conditions and obligations have been proposed to ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms. Principle of development

9 Since Stage 1, the applicant has reconfigured the layout of the publicly accessible viewing gallery on level 55 to maximise 360 degree views of London by reducing the size of the ‘support space’ in response to concerns raised by GLA and City Planning officers. The provision of the public viewing gallery and details of its operation have been secured in the S106 agreement in accordance with the details set out in the S106 agreement (which includes opening hours of the viewing gallery between 10.00 to18.00 hours Monday to Sunday including Bank Holidays (and closed on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day), seven permitted closure days per calendar year and a maximum of capacity of 360 members of the public at any one time during the opening hours). Conditions have been secured to ensure an inclusive space for the public including the submission and approval of details of internal layout, extent of catering facilities, the look and feel of the interior and reception areas and visitor management.

10 Given the location of the site within one of London’s strategic financial and business centres, the inclusion of residential uses within the scheme was not considered desirable. In such cases, the City Corporation’s Planning Obligations SPD requires office development to make a financial contribution towards affordable housing off-site. A financial contribution of £1,756,920 has been secured in the S106 agreement. This will be invested in the City Corporation’s London- wide affordable housing programme.

page 3

Urban Design

11 At stage 1, the high-quality architecture was noted as was the principle of opening up the site to provide links between Billiter Street and 30 St Mary’s Axe. GLA officers requested that the applicant submit street level views to demonstrate that the high-quality design of the building continued down to street level ensuring that a human scale was retained. In addition, the applicant was asked to explore alternative servicing options.

12 The applicant submitted ground level CGI’s that demonstrated that the Leadenhall Street frontage which consists of limestone street block facades provides an appropriate contextual response reflecting the tight urban grain that characterises Leadenhall Street.

13 With regards to the potential conflict between the pedestrian route to the rear of the site and the servicing route, while alternatives were considered, servicing to the rear was considered to be the best option. A servicing consolidation strategy has been secured to reduce and manage the number of vehicle movements travelling to the site as well as manage the vehicle type and size requiring consolidation. The reduction in service vehicle movements in the immediate locality would mean less potential conflict with residents and cyclists particularly during peak times.

14 The City Corporation have secured conditions to ensure that the design quality is carried through to the build out. Therefore, the application now complies with London Plan Policies 7.6, 7.5 and 7.7 and draft London Plan Policies D1, D2, D7 and D8. Strategic Views

15 As concluded in the stage 1 report, whilst the scheme would in many cases be a prominent feature on the capital’s skyline, it would be perceived as part of an established grouping of tall buildings within the City of London’s eastern cluster, and would preserve the ability to appreciate the various strategic landmarks identified by the LVMF SPG. GLA officers are of the opinion that the proposal would reinforce and enhance the characteristics of strategic views through an improved consolidation of the eastern cluster. Accordingly, the application complies with London Plan Policy 7.12 and Policy HC4 of the draft London Plan. Historic Environment

16 As discussed at Stage 1, GLA officers consider that the proposal would not harm the setting of Listed Buildings and would not harm the character/setting of the surrounding Conservation Areas. In addition, the proposal would have a beneficial effect on the Grade I Listed St Andrews the Undershaft as it opens up views to the eastern end of the church, enhancing the visibility and setting of the Church. Accordingly, GLA officers are satisfied that the application accords with London Plan Policy 7.8 and Policy HC1 of the draft London Plan. The impact on heritage assets and the World Heritage Site is further discussed in paragraph 25 and 26 of this report. Climate change

17 Revised energy details have been provided following Stage 1 consultation and subsequent discussions with the GLA energy officer. The proposals will achieve a 36.1% carbon reduction. The revised energy strategy demonstrates compliance with London Plan climate change policy. Transport

18 During Stage 1 consultation, a number of transport issues were raised, including permeability and pedestrian connectivity and provision of short stay cycle parking.

page 4

19 Issues raised regarding public realm have been resolved as discussed in the urban design section above. It is proposed to provide 12 short stay cycle parking spaces within the application site at ground floor level. There are 17 existing stands on Cunard Place (providing 34 cycle short stay cycle parking spaces) which would be retained and would count towards the short stay offer – providing a total of 46 spaces at ground floor level, plus 18 short stay spaces which are proposed to be provided at basement level. The total number of short stay cycle parking spaces proposed is 64 which is considered appropriate in this instance.

20 Following comments made in the Stage 1 report, the Council have secured conditions and s106 obligations for formal consultation of TfL on the Section 278 agreement; post-occupation trip generation monitoring contribution; Crossrail contribution (£12 million); cycling improvements contribution; legible London signage contribution; Cycle Hire contribution; public realm access; restrictions to delivery and servicing times; 24 hour access to blue badge parking; details of cycle parking; travel plan; delivery and servicing plan; and construction and logistics plan, as requested. The proposed development is in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan and the draft London Plan. Response to consultation

21 The City Corporation publicised the application via a site notice displayed in the vicinity of the site and a notice in the local press. Individual notification letters were sent to neighbouring properties. As a result of public notification, a total of 75 responses were received, 74 of which were in objection to the proposal and one contained a general comment regarding right of way.

22 The objections are summarised as follows:

• Scale of the development; • Demolition of existing buildings of historic merit; • Adverse impact on local conservation areas and local character; • Adverse impact on Bevis Marks Synagogue including on setting of listed Synagogue, daylight/sunlight into courtyard and overlooking and security implications; • Adverse impacts on local and strategic views; • Adverse impact on setting of nearby listed buildings; • Adverse impact on Tower of London World Heritage Site; • Adverse impact on public viewing galleries of adjacent buildings; • Loss of daylight in nearby flats on Creechurch Lane; • Light pollution; • Impacts from construction • Surplus office space in the City; • Overpopulation; • Noise pollution; and • Transport impacts.

23 The following statutory bodies and other groups also commented on the proposals:

• Historic England (Historic Buildings): raised no objection • London Sephardi Trust: Objected to the proposal on the basis that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the Grade I Listed Bevis Marks Synagogue and the daylight and sunlight received to the adjoining courtyard. • Tavor Holdings Ltd on behalf of Valiant House: Objected to the proposal on the basis that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the light levels and associated amenity at Valiant House.

page 5

• The Wardens and Society of the Mystery or Art of the Leathersellers: Objected to the proposal on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on the St Helen’s Place Conservation Area and the setting of nearby heritage sites and listed buildings and daylight into 33 Great St Helens. • Environment Agency: No comment. • Port of London Authority: No comment. • Natural England: No comment. • Thames Water: No objection subject to conditions. • London Heathrow Airport: No safeguarding objections subject to informative. • London City Airport: No safeguarding objections subject to informative. • National Air Traffic Services (NATS): No safeguarding objections subject to informative. • London Borough of Hackney: No objection. • Royal Borough of Greenwich: No objection. • London Borough of Lambeth: No objection. • London Borough of Tower Hamlets: No comment. • City of London Police: Reviewed the public realm with regards to Hostile Vehicle Mitigation and public access and raised no objection. • Historic Royal palaces: Objected to the proposal as it would have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. • The Surveyor to the fabric of St Paul’s Cathedral: objects to the proposal as it would have an adverse impact on the view of the Grade I Listed St Paul’s Cathedral from Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill. • Meron Holdings on behalf of 18 Bevis Marks: Objected to the proposal as it would have adverse impacts on light levels and associated amenity of John Stow House • Anstey Horne on behalf of residents of 4-8 Creechurch Street: Objected to the proposal on the basis it would have an adverse daylight/sunlight impact on residents. • PCC of St Helen Bishopsgate: raised three issues regarding wind changes to the physical fabric of St Andrew Undershaft and St Helen Bishopsgate, noise during construction and the use of the new pocket park open space to the east of St Andrew Undershaft. • Georgian Group: Objected to the proposal on the basis that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the Grade I Listed Bevis Marks Synagogue.

Representations sent directly to the Mayor.

24 The GLA received a copy of the objections sent to the City Corporation from the London Sephardi Trust and The Surveyor to the fabric of St Paul’s Cathedral.

Consultation conclusion

25 In relation to these objections local issues including the environmental impacts on surrounding sites and occupiers have been considered by the Corporation in their report and City of London’s officers considered them acceptable. The strategic issues raised including transport and visual impact have been dealt with in this report, the Stage 1 report and in the Corporation’s report.

26 In relation to the objections regarding the impact upon heritage assets, including the Grade 1 Bevis Marks Synagogue, the Grade I Listed St Paul’s Cathedral and the Tower of London World Heritage Site, the Corporation and the GLA have assessed this impact with reference to the applicant’s Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In making this assessment, regard has been had to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which sets out the tests for dealing with heritage assets in planning decisions. In relation to listed buildings, all planning decisions should “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” (Section 66) and in relation to conservation areas, special attention must be paid to “the desirability of preserving or

page 6 enhancing the character or appearance of that area” (Section 72). In relation to the Tower of London World Heritage Site regard has been had to its Outstanding Universal Value, as defined in the Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan 2016, in considering the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of its physical presence and setting. As set out in Stage 1 report and reiterated in this Stage 2 report and by the Corporation in their committee report, GLA and City of London Officers conclude that the proposed development would not result in harm to heritage assets or their setting and would not compromise the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. The proposal would appear as a significant and eye catching feature on the skyline but would be visually integrated within the eastern cluster reinforcing the defining and positive characteristic of the juxtaposition of the old and new buildings and structures (including the World Heritage Site and St Pauls Cathedral) in the City. The proposal would maintain the gap in skyline between the eastern cluster and the Tower of London World Heritage Site and the Grade I Listed St Pauls Cathedral when viewed from key view points.

27 It is noted that following concerns raised by objectors, the applicant submitted supplementary information on the historic significance of the Grade I Listed Bevis Marks Synagogue. The Corporation considered the potential for the proposal to impact upon the setting and the daylight/sunlight of the Grade I Listed Synagogue and concluded that given the large double height windows, the enclosed nature of the Synagogue’s setting and the presence of numerous existing and consented tall buildings as a backdrop, the proposal will not diminish daylight to a degree that would harm the appreciation of the historic interior. In addition, it was considered that the proposal would have a limited impact on views from the Courtyard however given the building would be viewed with the wider context of the eastern cluster it was not considered to harm the setting of significance of the synagogue. GLA officers have considered the objections, additional information submitted and the Corporations assessment on the Grade I Listed Synagogue and concur with the Corporations assessment that the proposal would form part of the wider context of the eastern cluster where visible from the courtyard and would not harm the setting or significance of the Grade I listed Bevis Marks Synagogue. Draft Section 106 agreement

28 The draft section 106 agreement includes the following provisions:

• Affordable Housing contribution of £1,756,920; • Crossrail contribution calculated in accordance with the Mayoral CIL SPG • Highway reparation and other highways obligations; • Delivery and servicing management plan; • Travel plan; • Local training, skills and job brokerage strategy (construction); • Local procurement; • Carbon offsetting; • Utility connections; • Public realm access; • Public viewing gallery management and access; • Legible London signage contribution; • Cycle Hire contribution; • Post occupation trip monitoring; • S278 agreement in consultation with TfL; • Solar glare; and • Wind mitigation measures.

page 7

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

29 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance, the Corporation has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at consultation stage, therefore, there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

30 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal, the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

31 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

32 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or, behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

33 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the Corporation to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the Corporation agrees to do so). Conclusion

34 The 2010 Equality Act places a duty on public bodies, including the GLA, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who not share it. This requirement includes removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who share a protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic and taking steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it. The Act defines the protected characteristics, and in this case those of religion/belief and disability are of particular relevance. For the avoidance of doubt, GLA officers have had due regard to the duty under the Equality Act 2010 in the consideration of this case

35 The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding urban design, heritage, climate change and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions and

page 8 obligations have been secured. As such the application complies with the London Plan and there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email [email protected] Kate Randell, Senior Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4783 email [email protected]

page 9