Public Document Pack

Planning and Transportation Committee

Date: TUESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2015 Time: 11.00 am Venue: LIVERY HALL - GUILDHALL

Members: Deputy Michael Welbank Christopher Hayward (Chairman) Gregory Jones QC Oliver Lodge (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Henry Jones Randall Anderson Deputy Keith Knowles Deputy Ken Ayers Alderman Professor Michael Mainelli Alex Bain-Stewart Paul Martinelli David Bradshaw Brian Mooney Deputy John Chapman Deputy Alastair Moss Dennis Cotgrove Sylvia Moys Revd Dr Martin Dudley Graham Packham Peter Dunphy Deputy Henry Pollard Emma Edhem Alderman Matthew Richardson Alderman Peter Estlin Tom Sleigh Sophie Fernandes Graeme Smith Marianne Fredericks Angela Starling Deputy Bill Fraser Patrick Streeter George Gillon Deputy James Thomson Brian Harris

Enquiries: Katie Odling tel. no.: 020 7332 3414 [email protected]

Lunch will be served in Guildhall Club at 1PM NB: Part of this meeting could be the subject of audio or video recording

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 3 February 2015.

For Decision (Pages 1 - 8)

4. MINUTES - STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB COMMITTEE To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2015.

For Information (Pages 9 - 12)

5. TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

For Information (Pages 13 - 22)

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

For Information (Pages 23 - 26)

7. REPORTS OF THE CITY PLANNING OFFICER RELATIVE TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS

a) 130 , Fountain House (Pages 27 - 82)

For Decision

b) St Bartholomew's Hospital - full (Pages 83 - 160)

For Decision

c) St Bartholomew's Hospital - LBC (Pages 161 - 194)

For Decision

8. REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

a) Barbican Area Strategy Review: Summary of Public and Stakeholder Feedback (Pages 195 - 200)

For Decision

b) Sugar Quay, Lower Thames Street - Affordable Housing contribution from proposed residential development (Pages 201 - 206)

This report should be considered in conjunction with non-public Appendix at Item 15.

For Decision

c) Implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (Pages 207 - 212)

For Decision d) Cycle Superhighways - The Mayor's Decision (Pages 213 - 218)

NB: The appendix to this report has been circulated as a separately bound document.

For Decision

e) Department of Built Environment Projects Programme (Pages 219 - 306)

For Decision

9. MILLENNIUM BRIDGE INCLINATOR OPTIONS PAPER Report of the City Surveyor.

For Decision (Pages 307 - 320)

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

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT

12. 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 Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. For Decision Part 2 - Non-public Agenda

13. GLA ROADS - LAND DISPUTE WITH TRANSPORT FOR Joint report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor and the City Surveyor.

For Information (Pages 321 - 334)

3

14. SUGAR QUAY, LOWER THAMES STREET - AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION FROM PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

NB: The appendices to this report have been placed in the Members’ Room in Guildhall for inspection.

For Decision (Pages 335 - 352)

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

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

Any drawings and details of materials submitted for approval will be available for inspection by Members in the Livery Hall from Approximately 9:30 a.m.

Confidential Agenda

17. PUBLIC REALM SAFETY Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

For Decision

Agenda Item 3

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee held at the Guildhall EC2 at 11.00 am

Present

Members: Deputy Michael Welbank (Chairman) Deputy Keith Knowles Oliver Lodge (Deputy Chairman) Brian Mooney Randall Anderson Deputy Alastair Moss Alex Bain-Stewart Sylvia Moys Deputy John Chapman Graham Packham Emma Edhem Deputy Henry Pollard Alderman Peter Estlin Tom Sleigh Brian Harris Angela Starling Christopher Hayward Patrick Streeter Deputy Henry Jones

Officers: Simon Murrells Assistant Town Clerk Katie Odling Town Clerk's Department Deborah Cluett Comptroller and City Solicitor's Department Annie Hampson Department of the Built Environment Paul Beckett Department of the Built Environment Steve Presland Department of the Built Environment Ted Rayment Department of the Built Environment Peter Shadbolt City Surveyor‟s Department Iain Simmons Department of the Built Environment Peter Young Corporate Property Group Director, City Surveyor's Department Tom Leathart City Surveyor's Department Sam Cook Remembrancer‟s Office Bella Longman Public Relations Alan Rickwood City Police Alexander Williams City Police

1. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley, Sophie Anne Fernandes, George Gillon, Alderman Professor Michael Mainelli, Graeme Smith and Deputy James Thompson.

2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations of interest.

Page 1 3. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2015 be approved.

Item 8 – Millennium Inclinator – The City Surveyor confirmed that a detailed action report would be presented to the next Committee.

4. TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director relative to development and advertisement applications dealt with under delegated authority since the previous meeting.

5. VALID APPLICATIONS LIST FOR COMMITTEE The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director which provided details of valid planning applications received by the department.

6. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY CORPORATION OF AMENDED GOVERNMENT POLICY ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the implications for the City Corporation of an amendment to Government policy on Affordable Housing.

Members requested that the Director of the Built Environment and the City Remembrancer seek out appropriate opportunities to make the Government aware of the impact that the amendment would have on the City of London and its neighbouring boroughs.

RESOLVED – That, a) the implications of the Government‟s revised policies for affordable housing in the determination of future planning applications for residential development in the City be noted; b) Officers be authorised to commence scoping work on the potential for a Local Plan Alteration to make a locally specific case that the vacant building credit should not apply in the City of London; and c) the Director of the Built Environment and the City Remembrancer be instructed to seek out appropriate opportunities to make the Government aware of the impact that its policy amendment in relation to Affordable Housing would have on the City of London and its neighbouring boroughs.

7. REPORTS RELATIVE TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS

7.1 YMCA Building, 2 Fann Street, London EC2Y 8BR

Registered Plan No.: 14/00322/FULMAJ

Proposal: Refurbishment, infill at basement, lower ground and ground floor levels, and change of use from hostel (Sui Generis) and gym/dance studio (Use Class D2) to provide 74 residential apartments (Use Class C3) with associated

Page 2 cycle parking and public realm improvements (Increase in floor space of 407sq.m GIA).

The Committee were informed of the following corrections -

 Policy 10.5 was not relevant so should be removed for the decision notice.  The following policies were duplicated and should also be removed: DM10.8, DM12.1, DM12.3, DM15.6, DM15.7, DM16.1, DM17.1, DM19.2, D21.3, DM21.5, DM22.1.

The Committee expressed their support for the application, however, noted the loss of Section 106 monies.

RESOLVED – That, a) Planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule, subject to Planning Obligations and other agreements being entered into as set out in the body of the report, the decision notice not the be issued until such obligations have been executed; and b) Officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in “Planning Obligations” under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

7.2 YMCA - 2 Fann Street, London, EC2Y 8BR - Listed Building Consent

RESOLVED – That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to appropriate conditions set out in the attached schedule.

7.3 Aldgate Open Space-Duke Street, St Boltoph's Street, Aldgate High Street, London EC3

Registered Plan No.: 14/00986/FULL

Proposal: Erection of new railings and gates and creation of enclosed gardens; alterations to existing churchyard railings and gates and the layout of the churchyard; erection of a single storey pavilion for café/restaurant use; use of existing subway tunnels for ancillary storage and servicing in association with the proposed pavilion; relocation if the police public call box and Mocatta drinking fountain; and other ancillary works.

The purpose of this report was to inform Members of the applications for those parts pf the Aldgate Project that require planning permission and listing building consent.

As the planning application was submitted on behalf of the Committee by the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee, the Grand Committee could not determine the planning application. This application would therefore be determined under powers delegated to officers.

Page 3 The Committee expressed their support for the scheme and in doing so, discussed the measures to design out skateboarding to ensure the space was protected. Furthermore, Members were informed that as part of the Aldgate Project there were plans to redevelop the passageway behind St Botolph.

The Chairman of the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee informed the Committee that this project had emanated from Ian Burley, former Member of the Court and therefore expressed thanks to him on behalf of the Committee.

RESOLVED – That, subject to the views expressed above, the following be noted - a) the intention to grant planning permission for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule; and b) the intention to notify the DCLG that Listed Building Consent would have been granted for application 14/00987/LBC.

8. FOSTER LANE CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director regarding the Foster Lane Conservation Area Character Summary and Management Strategy.

Page 178 & 179 – amendments:

Page 178 ‘This consultation Statement is provided as a supporting document for the formal consultation period (2015).’

Stages of Consultation ‘…on the above Supplementary Planning Document between October 2014 and February 2015.’

Page 179 Local Plan Bulletin – ‘The Barbican Guidelines Foster Lane SPD has been included since 2013.’

RESOLVED – That, a) the draft text of the Foster Lane Conservation Area Character Summary and Management Strategy, appended as Appendix A to the report be approved and placed on the website as a „living draft‟ prior to formal public consultation in 2015; b) the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to make amendments in response to the public‟s comments, providing these do not materially change the document; and c) following informal public consultation, the document be published for formal consultation, prior to adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document.

Page 4 9. PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director which advised on the decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on appeals made against the decisions of the City Corporation during 2014.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

10. REPORTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

10.1 Response to Mayor's Draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment detailing the suggested response of the City Corporation to the Mayor‟s Draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework (December 2014).

For future, it was proposed that local Members should be consulted on these types of documents.

RESOLVED - That Appendix A be approved to form the basis of the City Corporation‟s submission to the Mayor in response to his consultation paper.

10.2 Department of the Built Environment, Business Plan Progress Report for Q2 & Q3 2014/17

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment which set out the progress made during Q2 & Q3 (July – December) against the 2014 – 2017 Business Plan.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

10.3 On Street Parking Charges Pay & Display

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment which recommended an increase in the hourly rate for on-street parking (Pay & Display) to £4.80, effective from 6 April 2015 which was in line with the charges of neighbouring boroughs.

The Committee discussed potential alternative payment methods for car parking and whether there were future plans to phase out the use of cash entirely. The Public Realm and Transportation Director advised the Committee that when reviewing the parking metres, Officers would consider the most economic method of collecting money. Furthermore, the idea of offering a reduced fare for card/phone payments would be explored.

RESOLVED – That an increase in the hourly rate for on-street parking (Pay & Display) to £4.80 (£1.20 for 15 minutes) to be effective from 6 April 2015, be approved.

Page 5 11. INFRASTRUCTURE BILL The Committee received a report of the Remembrancer which advised of the relevant provisions of the Infrastructure Bill currently before Parliament.

The Remembrancer informed the Committee that the provisions in the Bill to replace the Electronic Communications Code had been withdrawn by the Government, and that the details of the proposed Code would now be the subject of further consultation.

The Remembrancer also informed the Committee that new amendments had been introduced to the Bill which would require the Government to set a five- year Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

In response to a question, Members were informed that more efficient ways of working would need to be considered to respond in time to developers seeking to discharge planning conditions, which would become more pressing in the light of the "deemed discharge" measure.

RESOLVED – That the report be received; and that it be noted that confirmation was being obtained that property not held by the Common Council as a local authority would be excluded from the scope of the new schemes for the transfer of public land.

12. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE Queensbridge House – The City Surveyor provided an update in relation to the redevelopment at Queensbridge House. Members were informed that if the redevelopment had not begun then a scheme would be initiated by the City of London Corporation via the Gateway Project procedure, beginning with a report to the Project Board on 3 March.

Transport/bus routes – The Assistant Director, Local Transportation informed the Committee of the ongoing work with Transport for London to safeguard the use of bus stops and buses in the City and part of this work was around better management of the bus service. An update would be provided to a future meeting.

13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT Cycle Superhighway – A report concerning the outcome of the consultation in particular for the East/West and North/South routes would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

Review meeting – The Chairman informed the Committee that a meeting of Officers and a small group of Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee would be meeting in March to discuss ways in which the format of planning application reports could be improved.

14. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED – That under Section 100a(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the

Page 6 grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

15. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2015 be approved.

16. NON-PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.

17. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There were no items of urgent business.

The meeting closed at 1.00 pm

Chairman

Contact Officer: Katie Odling tel. no.: 020 7332 3414 [email protected]

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8 Agenda Item 4

STREETS AND WALKWAYS SUB (PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION) COMMITTEE

Monday, 19 January 2015

Minutes of the meeting of the Streets and Walkways Sub (Planning and Transportation) Committee held at Committee Rooms, 2nd Floor, West Wing, Guildhall on Monday, 19 January 2015 at 1.45 pm

Present

Members: Marianne Fredericks (Chairman) Jeremy Simons (Deputy Chairman) Randall Anderson Alex Bain-Stewart Deputy John Barker (Ex-Officio Member) Brian Harris Sylvia Moys Graham Packham Deputy Michael Welbank

Officers Katie Odling Town Clerk's Department Olumayowa Obisesan Chamberlains Anna Simpson Comptrollers and City Solicitor’s Department Steve Presland Department of the Built Environment Victor Callister Department of the Built Environment Iain Simmons Department of the Built Environment Ian Hughes Department of the Built Environment Patrick Hegarty Open Spaces Department Alan Rickwood City Police Dave Aspinall City Police

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Alderman Alison Gowman and Oliver Lodge.

2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations of interest.

3. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2014 be approved.

Page 9 4. OUTSTANDING REFERENCES Ludgate Circus The Transportation and Public Realm Director provided an update in relation to the fatality at Ludgate Circus. Various actions had been taken to mitigate the risk of further accidents including strengthening the 20mph signage. Officers were liaising with Transport for London to reinforce and address safety needs. Members were informed by the City of London Police that as the incident was still under investigation; no further details could be released.

Cycle Superhighway Members were informed that the results of the public consultation would be published by Transport for London on 27 January 2015 with a view to a decision being made regarding construction on 4 February 2015. It was agreed that it would be beneficial to provide an update to the Sub Committee on 23 February 2015 and afterwards to all Members of Court in March 2015 via a briefing session.

Parking for Motorcycles Members were informed that a policy document was being drafted regarding the framework for charging, provision of more parking bays and theft of motorcycles. Particular reference was made to on-street parking for motorcycles on Swan Lane and whether this was an appropriate area. The alternative was to move the parking bays to Lawrence Hill; however, this would be confirmed at a later date once the use of space had been investigated further.

20mph Speed Limit Members were informed that since October there had been 100 Traffic Offence Reports, 114 Enforcement Fixed Penalty Notices and 25 summonses to court. Future reports of this kind would include details of any prosecutions.

5. SPECIAL EVENTS ON THE HIGHWAY The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Special Events on the public highway.

Smithfield Nocturne Members were informed that this event was likely to be cancelled or relocated – the event organisers had submitted an application to move the event to the area on a much larger scale. It was agreed to investigate whether there were any issues between the organisers and market traders at Smithfield.

Members requested further details regarding the noise complaints which had been reported from as far away as the Barbican via a briefing note outside of the meeting.

Go Karting Officers had requested further information from the event organisers on similar events; however the response had been limited. At present, the City Corporation was not in a position to be able to support such an event because the vehicles were not road worthy and therefore not legal. The legislative

Page 10 position was changing to permit races on the public highway, but the date for the new regulations coming into force was not known, and in addition races would need to be approved by the relevant official motor sports body. Some Members also expressed concerns that non electric Go Karts would add to both noise and pollution levels. Members noted that if the legal position changed, then a similar event might be supported in future particularly if electric vehicles were used. Members were in agreement that this event should not be supported at this time.

RESOLVED – That, a) the retention of the British 10k, BUPA 10k and RideLondon events through the City with amended routes be approved; b) the likely removal of the Smithfield Nocturne from this year’s events calendar be noted; and c) the City Go-Kart Grand Prix would not be supported at this time.

6. MITRE SQUARE The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Mitre Square.

The Sub Committee discussed the potential source (s) of funding and the sum of £50,000 which would be used for air quality monitoring. It was noted that all S106 arrangements included a contribution for the monitoring of air quality.

The Sub Committee highlighted the importance of creating a space which was accessible to all users and also a space which did not encourage skateboarding or anti-social behaviour.

RESOLVED – That, a) the Scheme Objectives as detailed in Appendix 1 be approved; and b) progression of the project and the release of funds, as set out in Section 16 and Appendix 4 (Table 2) of the report be approved;

7. ALDGATE HIGHWAY CHANGES AND PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENT The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Aldgate Highway Changes and Public Realm Enhancement.

The Sub Committee expressed thanks to Officers for an excellent piece of work.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

8. ANNUAL ON-STREET PARKING ACCOUNTS 2013/14 AND UTILISATION OF ACCRUED SURPLUS ON HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND SCHEMES The Sub Committee received a report of the Chamberlain regarding the annual on-street parking accounts 2013/2014 and utilisation of accrued surplus on highway improvements and schemes.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Page 11 9. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB COMMITTEE Skateboarding – The landscaping work on the riverside near the City of London Boys School was nearing completion and was already proving attractive to skateboarders. This was causing disruption to the school and was having a negative impact on the enjoyment of visitors using the new space. Officers explained that seating planned for the scheme was yet to be installed and when it was this should limit the opportunity for skateboarding.

A Member suggested that officers be formally actioned to prepare a set of design principles for New Street and public space works that discouraged skateboarding. The design principles should be reviewed at a future meeting of the Sub Committee and afterwards by the Planning and Transportation Committee once Members were happy with the proposals.

It was also suggested that a specific design goal be adopted for all future projects of this nature and that they should be designed to discourage this activity.

It was felt that when these projects were reviewed by Members, this issue should be specifically highlighted and the proposals reviewed with this objective in mind before authorisation to proceed was given.

In reply, the Transportation and Public Realm Director confirmed that such a project was already underway focused around the prevention of skateboarding at St Paul’s. This report, including design principles, is targeted for completion prior to this summer recess.

RESOLVED – That a wider review and a specific piece of work be undertaken to address skateboarding at St Paul’s (an approximate timeframe would be reported to the Sub Committee).

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no items of urgent business.

The meeting ended at 3.30 pm

Chairman

Contact Officer: Katie Odling tel. no.: 020 7332 3414 [email protected]

Page 12 Agenda Item 5

Committee: Date: Item no.

Planning and Transportation 24 February 2015

Subject:

Delegated decisions of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

Public

1. 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.

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

DETAILS OF DECISIONS

Registered Address Proposal Date of Plan Number & Decision Ward 14/01214/LBC 174 Defoe House Internal alterations 22.01.2015 Barbican comprising (i) installation of Aldersgate London suspended ceilings and EC2Y 8ND recessed spotlights; (ii) reconfiguration of internal walls to create en suite shower room and separate bathroom. 14/01048/PODC Mitre Square, Submission of utility 05.02.2015 International House, connection details pursuant Aldgate Duke's Place, 11 to schedule 3 paragraph Mitre Street & 1 Mitre 15.1 of section 106 Square London agreement dated 09 June EC3 2014 and planning application reference 13/01082/FULMAJ. 14/01062/MDC 52-54 Lime Street & Details of sewer vents 27.01.2015 21-26 Leadenhall pursuant to condition 5 of Aldgate (Prudential House), planning permission 27 & 27A Leadenhall (application no. Street (Allianz 14/00027/FULMAJ) dated Cornhill House) & 34- 30th June 2014. 35 Leadenhall Street

Page 13 & 4-5 Billiter Street (Winterthur House) London, EC3 14/00840/PODC Land Bounded By Submission of details of 29.01.2015 , Wood utilities connections Bassishaw Street, St. Alphage pursuant to paragraph Gardens, Fore Street, 14.1.1 of schedule 1 of the Fore Street Avenue, S106 agreement in relation Bassishaw Highwalk, to Planning Permission Alban Gate Rotunda, 10/00832/FULEIA dated Alban Highwalk, 26.08.2011. Moorfields Highwalk And Willoughby Highwalk, London, EC2 14/00896/PODC Land Bounded By Submission of a draft 29.01.2015 London Wall, Wood programme for ordering and Bassishaw Street, St. Alphage completion of services Gardens, Fore Street, connections from utility Fore Street Avenue, providers pursuant to Bassishaw Highwalk, paragraph 14.1.2 of Alban Gate Rotunda, schedule 1 of the S106 Alban Highwalk, agreement in relation to Moorfields Highwalk planning permission And Willoughby 10/00832/FULEIA dated Highwalk, London, 26.08.2011. EC2 14/01288/TCA Churchyard of Saint Works of pruning to two 05.02.2015 John Zachary London Plane trees. Bassishaw Gresham Street London EC2V 15/00026/MDC 53 Monument Street Details of waste storage and 10.02.2015 London collection facilities pursuant EC3R 8BU to condition 3 of planning permission (application no. 12/00487/FULL) dated 7th November 2012. 14/00691/MDC 5 London Details of the land between 22.01.2015 EC2M 2QS the existing building lines and the face of the proposed new building pursuant to condition 10 of planning permission dated 29 July 2011 (10/00904/FULEIA). 14/01170/MDC East India House 109 Details of a noise survey 27.01.2015 - 117 Middlesex pursuant to condition 2 (a) Bishopsgate Street of planning permission London 14/00764/FULL dated 18

Page 14 E1 7JF September 2014. 14/01178/MDC 61 St Mary Axe, 80- Revision to approved 22.01.2015 86 Bishopsgate, 88- Construction Method Bishopsgate 90 Bishopsgate, 12- Statement Ref: 20 Camomile Street, 12/00380/MDC for stage 2 15-16 St Helen's works, pursuant to Condition Place And 33-35 St 8 (part) of planning Mary Axe (North permission 12/00129/FULL Elevation Only), dated 30th March 2012. London EC3 15/00002/MDC Alderman's House Samples and particulars of 10.02.2015 117, 119, 121 the materials pursuant to Bishopsgate Bishopsgate Condition 14 (a) of planning 34-37 Liverpool permission dated 28.3.12 Street (09/00192/FULMAJ) London amended by application EC2M 3TH under section 73 dated 23.06.2014 (13/01199/FULMAJ) 14/01190/ADVT Installation and display of 27.01.2015 London two internally illuminated Bridge And EC3M 1DE wayfinding signs measuring Bridge Without 1.2m high by 0.47m wide. 14/01224/LBC 27 Throgmorton Installation of a glazed 03.02.2015 Street London partition at first floor level. Broad Street EC2N 2AQ 14/01221/FULL 75 King William Flexible change of use of 05.02.2015 Street London part of ground floor from Candlewick EC4N 7BE retail uses falling within Classes A1/A2/A3 to uses falling within Classes A1/A2/A3/D1 and part of the basement and lower ground floors from offices (Class B1) to uses falling within Classes B1 and D1. 14/01083/MDC 12 New Fetter Lane Submission of a Noise 29.01.2015 London Report pursuant to condition Castle Baynard EC4A 1AG 10 (part) of planning permission 11/00423/FULL dated 18.08.2011. 14/01188/FULL 21 Tudor Street Erection of fifth floor roof 03.02.2015 London level 35sqm extension Castle Baynard EC4Y 0DJ fronting Carmelite Street. 14/01194/FULL 53 - 55 Carter Lane Change of use of the part 28.01.2015 London ground floor at 53-55 Carter Castle Baynard EC4V 5AE Lane from Class A1 to concierge facility (Class C3) and associated external

Page 15 works including creation of a new entrance to Carter Lane. 14/01279/TTT Details of ambient noise 27.01.2015 Foreshore London monitoring pursuant to Castle Baynard EC4 Requirement PW19 of schedule 3 of the Thames Water Utilities (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014. 14/01112/LBC The Globe Public Installation of a traditional 03.02.2015 House 83 Moorgate public house hanging sign. Coleman Street London EC2M 6SA 14/01113/ADVT The Globe Public Installation of a traditional 03.02.2015 House 83 Moorgate public house hanging sign Coleman Street London measuring 1.35m high by EC2M 6SA 0.6m wide at a height of 3.6m above ground. 14/00328/MDC 39-53 , Details of a site survey and 27.01.2015 11-14 Bow Lane & finished floor levels pursuant Cordwainer Watling Court London to condition 10 of planning EC4 permission dated 15.10.2013 (13/00339/FULMAJ). 14/00921/MDC 108 Cannon Street Details of particulars and 22.01.2015 London samples of the materials to Dowgate EC4N 6EU be used on all external faces of the building including external ground and upper level surfaces; details of the proposed new facade(s) including typical details of the fenestration; details of the ground floor office entrance(s); details of soffits and hand rails; details of the roof terrace pursuant to condition 8 (a) (part), (b), (c), (d) (part) and (e) of planning permission dated 28 April 2014 13/01110/FULL. 14/01011/FULL Cannon Green Refurbishment of Bush 05.02.2015 Building 27 Bush Tower including: change of Dowgate Lane use from office (Class B1) to London restaurant (Class A3) at part EC4R 0AN ground floor level; change of use from ancillary office (Class B1) to gym (Class

Page 16 D2) at part basement level 2; provision of ancillary cycle parking and additional cycle parking storage; external alterations including replacement fenestration, new entrance portal and extensions to the north and west elevations; pergola at the eastern boundary, extension of a bridge link connecting to Thames Tower, landscaping of existing external terrace, additional plant equipment at roof level and other incidental works. 14/01131/PODC Site Bounded By 34- Submission of details of 29.01.2015 38, 39-41, 45-47 & Local Training skills and Job Farringdon 57B Little Britain, Brokerage Strategy of Local Within 20,25,47, 48-50, 51- Procurement Strategy 53, 59, 60, 61,61A & pursuant to clause 2 and 62 Bartholomew clause 11 (Prior to Close, London EC1 Commencement of Phase 1 of development) of schedule 2 of the S106 agreement dated 29 May 2013 application ref. 12/00256/FULEIA 14/01181/FULL 80 Farringdon Street Installation of microcell 22.01.2015 London antenna on front facade. Farringdon EC4A 2EJ Within 14/01182/LBC 80 Farringdon Street Installation of microcell 22.01.2015 London antenna on front facade. Farringdon EC4A 2EJ Within 14/01268/MDC Fleet Building, 40 Details for protecting nearby 10.02.2015 Shoe Lane, 70 residents and commercial Farringdon Farringdon Street, occupiers from noise and Within Plumtree Court, other environmental effects 42 Shoe Lane, 12 during demolition pursuant Plumtree Court & to condition 2 of planning 57 Farringdon Street permission reference London 14/01054/FULL dated 18 December 2014. 14/00958/FULL 7 Bream's Buildings Installation of roof mounted 22.01.2015 London air condenser unit following Farringdon EC4A 1DT removal of existing air Without conditioning unit.

Page 17 14/01039/MDC 98 Fetter Lane & 12 Details of sewer vents 03.02.2015 Norwich Street pursuant to condition 6 of Farringdon London planning permission dated Without EC4 21.02.14 (13/00771/FULMAJ) 14/01136/ADVT 191 - 192 Installation and display of i) 29.01.2015 London a wrap around fascia Farringdon EC4A 2NJ incorporating 3 internally Without illuminated signs each measuring 0.5m high x 0.7m wide located at a height of 2.8m above ground level; and ii) 2 internally illuminated projecting signs measuring 0.60m high by 0.60m wide by 0.12m deep located at heights of 2.76m and 2.81m above ground level. 14/01169/MDC Halsbury House 35 Submission of a 10.02.2015 Construction Management Farringdon London Plan pursuant to conditions Without WC2A 1EL 3 and 5 of planning permission dated 20th June 2014 (reference: 13/01189/FULL). 14/01184/FULL 3 Middle Temple Change of use of the third 05.02.2015 Lane Middle Temple floor from residential (class Farringdon London C3) to temporary sleeping Without EC4Y 9AA accommodation (two units) for periods of less than 90 consecutive nights (Class C3) and other minor associated works. 14/01185/LBC 3 Middle Temple Minor internal works to 05.02.2015 Lane Middle Temple enable a change of use of Farringdon London the third floor from Without EC4Y 9AA residential (Class C3) to temporary sleeping accommodation (Class C3). 14/01239/ADVT 84A Fetter Lane Installation and display of (i) 10.02.2015 London one fascia sign with Farringdon EC4A 1EQ internally illuminated Without lettering measuring 1.45m by 0.36m situated at a height above ground of 2.6m, (ii) one internally illuminated projecting sign measuring 0.5m by 0.7m situated at a height above

Page 18 ground of 2.6m. 14/01243/LBC St Bartholomew's Installation of stone 03.02.2015 Hospital, Kenton & commemorative plaque to Farringdon Lucas Wing, north elevation. Without West Smithfield, London EC1A 7JQ 14/01244/FULL St Bartholomew's Installation of a stone 03.02.2015 Hospital Kenton & commemorative plaque to Farringdon Lucas Wing north elevation. Without West Smithfield London EC1A 7BE 14/00746/MDC 120 Fenchurch Street Details of a site survey and 27.01.2015 London finished floor levels pursuant Langbourn EC3 to condition 2 of planning permission 11/00854/FULEIA dated 30/12/12. 14/00751/MDC 120 Fenchurch Street Details of the 27.01.2015 London Deconstruction Logistics Langbourn EC3 Plan and Environmental Protection scheme pursuant to condition 4 and condition 5 (part) of Planning Permission 11/00854/FULEIA dated 30/03/2012. 14/00926/PODC 120 Fenchurch Street Submission of Highway 29.01.2015 London Schedule of Condition Langbourn EC3M 5BA pursuant to clause 8.1 of Schedule 2, pursuant to Section 106 agreement dated 30 March 2012 in relation to planning permission 11/00854/FULEIA dated 30/03/2012. 14/01222/FULL 155 Fenchurch Permanent alteration of the 05.02.2015 Street, London roof to the middle dormer in Langbourn EC3M 6AL the south elevation from zinc to glass.

14/01159/ADVT 1 Undershaft London Installation and display of: 6 03.02.2015 EC3A 8EE non illuminated hoarding Lime Street advertisements measuring 2.2 metres high, 12 metres wide displayed at a height of 0.1 metres above ground level. 14/00986/FULL Site At The Junction Erection of new railings and 03.02.2015

Page 19 of Duke's Place, St. gates and creation of Portsoken Botolph Street & enclosed gardens; Aldgate High Street, alterations to existing London EC3 churchyard railings and gates and the layout of the churchyard; erection of a single storey pavilion for cafe/restaurant use; use of existing subway tunnels for ancillary storage and servicing in association with the proposed pavilion; and relocation of the police public call box and Mocatta drinking fountain. 14/01210/MDC 9 - 13 Aldgate High Details of rainwater 29.01.2015 Street London harvesting and grey water Portsoken EC3 recycling systems pursuant to Condition 14 of planning permission dated 08.04.2014 app. no. 13/00590/FULL. 14/01223/MDC 9 - 13 Aldgate High Details of impact studies on 03.02.2015 Street London the existing water supply Portsoken EC3 infrastructure pursuant to Condition 13 of planning permission dated 08.04.2014 app.no. 13/00590/FULL(Additional Information received)

14/00889/FULL 1 Aldgate London Change of Use of ground 02.02.2015 EC3N 1RE floor from B1 (office) to A1 Tower (retail), installation of new entrance/exit doors, ventilation louvres and ATM to replace glazed windows. 14/01146/MDC Land Bounded By Submission of an Interim 22.01.2015 Mark Lane, Hart Travel Plan pursuant Tower Street, London Street condition 25 of planning & New London Street permission dated 4th August London 2008 (06/01144/FULL) as EC3 amended by NMA dated 8th November 2011 (11/00526/NMA). 14/01176/FULL Pinnacle House 23 - Change of use from B1(a) 22.01.2015 26 St Dunstan's Hill (office) to flexible B1(a) Tower London (office) or D1 (Doctor's EC3R 8HL Surgery) use.

Page 20 14/01235/MDC 100 Minories London Details of the brickwork to 05.02.2015 EC3N 1JY crescent pursuant to 15(a) Tower (in part) of planning permission dated 14.02.2014 (Application number 12/00263/FULMAJ) 14/01240/FULL Ibex House 41 - 47 Installation of 41 black 05.02.2015 Minories painted metal bicycle racks Tower London to the existing railings within EC3N 1DY the existing service area to the North and South of the building. 14/01241/LBC Ibex House 41 - 47 Installation of 41 black 05.02.2015 Minories painted metal bicycle racks Tower London to the existing railings within EC3N 1DY the existing service area to the North and South of the building. 14/01227/FULL The Walbrook Installation of: (i) one set of 09.02.2015 Building 25 Walbrook entrance doors to the Walbrook London Walbrook elevation; and (ii) EC4N 5HA one set of entrance doors to the Cannon Street elevation. 14/01230/LDC 27 - 35 Poultry Details of the acoustic 05.02.2015 London ceiling to the Banking Hall Walbrook EC2R 8AJ pursuant to Condition 3 (e) (in part) of listed building consent dated 3rd June 2014 (planning permission 13/01037/LBC). 14/01236/ADVT The Walbrook Installation and display of (i) 10.02.2015 Building, 25 Walbrook two internally illuminated Walbrook London fascia signs measuring 0.4m EC4N 8AF high, 2.1m wide, at a height above ground of 2.8m) (ii) three non-illuminated projecting signs measuring 0.45m high, 0.8m wide, at individual heights above ground of 2.74m, 2.87m and 2.84m respectively.

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 22 Agenda Item 6

Committee: Date:

Planning and Transportation 24 February 2015

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

Public

1. 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.

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

DETAILS OF VALID APPLICATIONS

Application Address Proposal Date of Number & Ward Validation 15/00003/FULL 20 St Dunstan's Replacement windows to the south 12/01/2015 Billingsgate Hill, London, elevation of the annex building to EC3R 8HL upper and lower ground floors. 14/01212/FULL 38 Broadgate Replacement of the two existing 13/01/2015 Bishopsgate Circle, London, windows and installation of one set of EC2 double doors. 14/01219/FULL 24-25 Widegate Application under Section 73(a) to 15/01/2015 Bishopsgate Street, London, retain minor works of implementation E1 7HP without complying with conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission (application no. 11/00275/FULL) dated 4th August 2011. 14/01276/FULL 20 Artillery Lane, Change of use of part ground floor 16/01/2015 Bishopsgate London, E1 7LS and basement from office (Class B1) use to either shop (Class A1) use, financial and professional services (Class A2), non-residential institution/medical (Class D1) use or office (Class B1) use. 14/01191/FULL Tower House, 11 Alteration and extension at roof level 02/02/2015 Bishopsgate Artillery Lane, (loft conversion) to provide additional London, E1 7LP office space [19.1sq.m GIA]. 14/01265/FULL 10 Eastcheap, Replacement of the existing manual 29/01/2015 Bridge And Bridge London, EC3M doors with a set of automatic double Without 1AJ doors.

Page 23 15/00012/FULL Drapers' Hall, Proposed alterations to the existing 12/01/2015 Broad Street Throgmorton external landscaping and planting in Avenue, London, the garden to include removing and EC2N 2DQ replacing the existing raised planter beds; altering the existing paving to create disabled access into the Livery Hall; installation of external lighting, new planting and retention of the existing trees. 14/01103/FULL 32 Lombard Application under Section 73 of the 09/01/2015 Candlewick Street, London, Town and Country Planning Act 1990 EC3V 9BQ to vary condition 18 of planning permission reference 10/00344/FULL dated 23rd December 2010 to refer to a revised and updated list of approved drawings that reflect amendments to the scheme including: an extension to the lift lobby and accommodation on the 9th floor adjacent to Plough Court; an extension and alteration to the layout of the roof plant screens arrangement and a correction of a minor drawing discrepancy on the sixth floor set back at Plough Court/ Lombard Street. 14/00933/FULL 5 Pemberton Change of use from office (Class B1) 15/01/2015 Castle Baynard Row, London, use to residential (Class C3) use to EC4A 3BA provide seven flats comprising 1x studio, 5 x1 bed and 1 x 2 bed units. Replacement windows to the main facades and new windows to lightwell. 15/00001/FULL Atlas House, 1 - Installation of new entrance. 05/01/2015 Cheap 7 King Street, London, EC2V 8AU 15/00054/FULL London Wall Change of use of part of fifth floor 06/02/2015 Coleman Street Buildings, from office B1(a) use to a flexible London Wall, office B1 / D1 educational and training London, EC2M use (260sq.m). 5PD 14/01251/FULMAJ 15 Bishopsgate Demolition of existing building and 21/01/2015 Cornhill & construction of a new building Public Realm., comprising a lower ground, basement, London, EC2N ground and six upper storeys for office 3NW use (Class B1) (7579sq.m) with retail (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4) at part lower ground, basement and ground floor levels (1463sq.m), five retail units ( Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4) (860sq.m), landscaping and associated works.

Page 24 15/00022/FULL Randall House, 6 Minor external and internal alterations 22/01/2015 Dowgate Dowgate Hill, and works of refurbishment of the London, EC4R building including the replacement of 2SU the rooftop plant and installation of new louvres within the non-original roof and refurbishment and relocation of the side entrance to the building line on the east elevation. 14/01162/FULL 131 Aldersgate Change of use of lower ground floor 08/01/2015 Farringdon Within Street, London, from A2 (Betting Office) to D1 (Dentist EC1A 4JQ Surgery). 14/01156/FULL 8 Half Moon Application under Section 73 A of the 26/01/2015 Farringdon Within Court, London, Town and Country Planning Act to EC1A 7HE vary condition 2 and 9 of planning permission dated 18.02.10 (App No 09/00800/FULL) to make changes to the external appearance of the building. 15/00044/FULL Footway Relocation of 18 cycle docking points 27/01/2015 Farringdon Within Adjacent To and a terminal to the footway adjacent Stonecutter to Stonecutter Court, Stonecutter Court, Street, and installation of one terminal Stonecutter on the south eastern footway of Street, London, Stonecutter Street, City of London, EC4 EC4. 15/00086/FULMAJ 160 Aldersgate Refurbishment and extension of the 02/02/2015 Farringdon Within Street, London, existing office building including (i) the EC1A 4DD construction of an additional storey (incorporating plant) (ii) reconstruction of the facade on Aldersgate Street (iii) provision of roof terraces at the 7th and 8th floor levels (iv) installation of an additional access point at the rear of the building and (v) associated internal and external alterations (total increase in floorspace 1899sq.m). 15/00010/FULL 49 - 50 Fleet Conversion of 6 storey Barristers 12/01/2015 Farringdon Without Street, London, Chambers into hotel use with lightwell EC4Y 1BE infill and 5th floor extension. 15/00067/FULL 10 Furnival Change of use of part of the ground 02/02/2015 Farringdon Without Street, London, floor from offices (use class B1) to EC4A 1AB premises for the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (sui generis) (669sq.m).

Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 26 Agenda Item 7a

Committee: Date:

Planning and Transportation 24 February 2015

Subject: Public 130 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 5DJ Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building of two basements, ground and 17 upper storeys comprising office (Class B1) use [40,502sq.m GEA] and flexible retail (Class A1/A3) floorspace [558sq.m GEA] and associated cycle parking, servicing, storage and plant. [Total 41,060sq.m GEA].

Ward: Langbourn For Decision

Registered No: 14/00496/FULMAJ Registered on: 20 June 2014

Conservation Area: No Listed Building: No

Summary

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a 21 storey building (two basements, ground floor, 17 upper floors and one double height roof plant level) for office and retail use. The highest part of the building would be 94.85m AOD (79m AGL). The new development would provide an additional 29,717sq.m (GEA) of office (Class B1) floorspace (40,502sq.m total) and 558sq.m (GEA) of retail floorspace (Class A1 and/or A3) at ground floor level. Existing retail space at basement and mezzanine levels would be lost (1,084sq.m). The proposed development would provide a significant increase in flexible office accommodation on this site, which will assist in meeting the needs of the financial and business services of the City. The proposal, due to its height and form would provide a distinctive building whose sculptural design creates a prominent juxtaposition with the townscape that is considered to create a positive relationship with the new generation of contemporary office developments in the Eastern Cluster The building would not be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings and conservation areas or views from the . The proposals support the strategic objectives of the City of London and would support the economic policies of the London Plan, Core Strategy and Local Plan.

Page 27 Recommendation

(a) Planning permission be GRANTED for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to planning obligations and other agreements being entered into in respect of those matters set out in the report, the decision not to be issued until such obligations have been executed; (b) That your officers be instructed to negotiate and execute obligations in respect of those matters set out in the report under Section 106.

Page 28 Page 29

Page 30 Main Report

Site 1. The site, Fountain House, forms the southern part of a street block bounded by Fenchurch Street to the south, Cullum Street and Lime Street to the west, Fen Court to the east and Fenchurch Avenue to the north. 2. The existing building was completed in 1959 (re-clad and extended in the early 2000s) and is comprised of a two storey podium, a central tower of 14 storeys (66.5m AOD) and an eight storey annex block that abuts the rear of 34, 37-39 (grade II listed) and 40 Lime Street. 3. The existing building provides 10,785sq.m (GEA) of office space (Class B1). The podium block provides 1,382sq.m (GEA) of mixed retail (Class A1, A2 and A3) space comprised of eight units over basement (437sq.m) and ground (945sq.m) levels. 4. The surrounding area is predominately in office use with retail uses on many of the street frontages. is to the west of the site and its associated Principal Shopping Centre (PSC) includes the site’s Cullum Street frontage. 5. There are a variety of building heights and styles in the area, ranging from four storey listed buildings to the 29 storey Willis Building at 51 Lime Street. The taller buildings in the street include 56-59 Fenchurch Street, (6 floors on the street frontage with setbacks to 16 floors overall), 60 Fenchurch Street (12 storeys) and Plantation Place (6 storeys on the street frontage with setbacks rising to 16 storeys overall). 120 Fenchurch Street, currently under construction, would rise to 15 storeys (87.88m AOD). 6. Fenchurch Street is a busy local distributor road, Fenchurch Avenue, Lime Street and Cullum Street (partly pedestrianised) are relatively quiet streets mainly providing local access and servicing to buildings fronting them, whilst Fen Court is a pedestrian only thoroughfare. The west side of Fen Court, adjoining the site, opens out onto a small garden that is a former churchyard. Fen Court has been re-landscaped and includes a memorial to slavery called “Gilt of Cain”.

Proposal 7. It is proposed to construct a new building for office and retail use. The building would comprise two basements, ground floor, 17 upper storeys (15 storeys to the north) and a double height plant level. The highest part of the building would be 94.85m AOD (79m AGL). 8. The proposed floorspace of the building is 41,060sq.m of which 40,502sq.m would be office (Class B1) and 558sq.m retail (Class A1 or A3). [All floorspace figures GEA] 9. The main entrance and reception would be located in the centre of the Fenchurch Street elevation with retail units adjoining to the east and

Page 31 west and wrapping around to Cullum Street and Fen Court. Servicing would be at ground level with access from Cullum Street.

Consultations 10. The views of other City of London departments have been taken into account in considering the redevelopment scheme. Some detailed matters remain to be dealt with through conditions and the provision of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 11. No objections have been received to the proposal. 12. English Heritage does not wish to comment and says that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the City’s specialist conservation advice. 13. Historic Royal Palaces have not responded. Given the relative height and distance from the Tower of London World Heritage Site, the proposed development would not be detrimental to its setting. 14. Thames Water has no objections but asks for conditions to prevent foundations having an adverse impact on water resources and sewers as well as ensuring that the development does not impact on water supplies. 15. The Environment Agency confirmed that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and recommend that surface water run-off is managed in accordance with policy 5.13 of the London Plan.

Policy Context 16. The development plan consists of the London Plan and the Local Plan. 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. 17. Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Considerations Introduction 18. 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); For development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it

Page 32 possesses (S66 (1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) and; For development within or adjoining a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area and its setting (S72 (1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). 19. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF advises, “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.” 20. The NPPF states at paragraph 14 that “at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking ….. For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay...” It further states at Paragraph 2 that: “Planning Law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. 21. It states at paragraph 7 that sustainable development has an economic, social and environmental role. 22. In considering the planning application before you, account has to be taken of the statutory and policy framework, the documentation accompanying the application, and views of both statutory and non- statutory consultees. 23. 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 London Plan and the Local Plan. • The impact of the proposal on heritage assets. • The impact on the nearby buildings and spaces, including daylight/sunlight and amenity. Economic Development Issues 24. London’s status as a world city is founded to a substantial degree on its concentration of international service activities and, most noticeably, by the clustering of financial and business services in the City of London.

Page 33 25. The importance that is attached to the maintenance and enhancement of the City's role as one of the world's leading financial and business centres is reflected in the policies of the Local Plan and London Plan, particularly policies CS1 and 2.10. 26. Policy CS1 seeks to increase office floorspace, particularly ‘encouraging the assembly and development of large sites, where appropriate, to meet the accommodation needs of the City’s biggest occupiers’. 27. The current buildings provide 10,785sq.m (GEA) of office accommodation. 28. The proposed building would provide 40,502sq.m (GEA) of high quality office accommodation to meet the demands of the City’s commercial occupiers and, using the London Plan’s assumed density of 1 person per 12sq.m (NIA) the number of office workers in the new building could be 2,237 compared with 850 in the existing building. Retail Uses 29. The existing building contains 1,382sq.m (GEA) of mixed retail floorspace at basement (437sq.m) and ground (945sq.m) floor levels. 30. The new development would provide a total of 558sq.m (GEA) retail floorspace, all of which would be at ground floor level, in the form of four flexible units (Class A1 and A3) of various sizes. 31. The west side of the site along Cullum Street forms part of the Leadenhall Market Principal Shopping Centre (PSC), with the south side along Fenchurch Street identified as being on a Retail Link. The loss of retail floorspace has to be considered against Local Plan policies DM20.1 (PSCs), DM20.2 (Retail Links) and DM20.3 (Other Locations). These policies seek to resist the loss of existing retail floorspace, particularly in PSCs, and seek replacement of existing floorspace on redevelopment, primarily at pedestrian level. The proposed development would remove all the basement level retail floorspace (437sq.m) and reduce the street level retail floorspace by 387sq.m with a reduction in retail frontage of 10m across the site. 32. Although there would be a reduction in total retail floorspace (824sq.m GEA) and frontage (10m), it is considered that the proposal would improve the quality of the ground floor retail space and that the quantum of street level floorspace and frontage would mean that there would be little impact on the vitality and viability of the PSC and Retail Link at street level. Servicing and Parking 33. The waste storage and collection facilities have been agreed with the Waste and Amenity Planning Manager. 34. An off-street service area is provided from Cullum Street to service the whole building. The service area would be able to accommodate one heavy goods vehicle (HGV), refuse collection vehicle or skip truck and one light goods vehicle (LGV) at any one time. The total number of

Page 34 service vehicles expected to visit the site per day would be approximately 21 for all vehicles types. 35. The service area would be able to accommodate all vehicles servicing the development but a servicing management plan will need to be approved to ensure that deliveries are spread throughout the day to avoid peaks when the service yard would otherwise become congested. 36. The development provides no car or motorcycle parking which accords with policy. 37. No on-site disabled parking would be provided. On-street disabled parking facilities are available on Mincing Lane approximately 50m to the south of the office reception. 38. The site is identified as being located in an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 6b. This is the highest level of accessibility and rated as “Excellent”. 39. The application includes a Travel Plan Framework. However, interim and full Travel Plans will be required (prior to occupation and within six months of first occupation respectively) to ensure that the tenants are promoting and encouraging sustainable travel methods. This would be secured through the S106 agreement. 40. 312 double stack cycle parking spaces would be provided at basement level together with shower and changing facilities. This would not meet the cycle parking standards in the adopted Local Plan of 1 space per 125sq.m of floorspace (GEA). However, a substantial area of GEA floorspace results from a screen to the rooftop plant enclosure and if this area is excluded from the floorspace calculations the cycle parking would be in compliance with the policy. Bulk & Massing 41. The existing building has a 2-storey podium with a central tower placed perpendicular to the line of Fenchurch Street and an 8-storey annex. The building was re-clad in the early 2000’s and extended. The podium with its retail frontages addresses the surrounding streets and alleyway. 42. Generally, heights and appearances of buildings in Fenchurch Street vary and are mostly modern. A small cluster of historic buildings in Fenchurch Street to the west of the site, but not adjacent, forms part of Leadenhall Market Conservation Area. 43. The architect’s intention was to create a street block that would reinforce the existing street relationships and interact with the local townscape which is characterised by street buildings of various types and ages with active street frontages. 44. The proposed height of 19 storeys inclusive ground and roof plant level (94.85m AOD) stepping down to 15 storeys (77.55m AOD) towards Leadenhall Market Conservation Area would result in a taller structure than most of its neighbours in the street. However, the proposed

Page 35 building would step up only by one and a half storeys (6.97m) from the approved 120 Fenchurch Street building to the east, thereby further establishing the trend of taller buildings being developed amongst the street blocks lining both sides of the street. Design 45. The architectural concept of a single, unified form requires a homogenous building envelope, strengthened by sculpting the building with vertical, concave glass strips 3m wide from the top to the ground. Graduating densities of black frit would reduce the visibility of the structure behind the glass. The fluted form would create a slender appearance with a serrated top edge that would reinforce the building when seen against the sky and thereby distinguish the building. The frit would have a matt finish and be applied to the exterior of the glass to reduce the reflectivity of the glass. It would reduce to the centre of the con-cave glass panels to achieve transparency in the office elevations and an overall lighter appearance of the facade. The frit would stop 3.0 metres above ground level to allow for uninterrupted views into the retail and reception areas. Details of the size, densities, colour, finish and visual effects of the fritting would be considered under the conditions of the approval, assisted by detailed drawings, to ensure that the design intent is followed through to implementation. In addition an informative is included to reinforce the importance of a high quality detailed design to the success of the building. 46. All north facing elevations and the east facing elevation of the smaller annex would be simplified with larger, curved modules that would maximise daylight ingress while the east and west facing elevations of the main block would have 1.5m curved modules. 47. On the roof of the annex at 15th floor level, an accessible terrace for the occupiers would be created that would include a perimeter green roof and planters, bird and insect boxes. Due to the relative positions of the terrace and residential uses, it is most unlikely that the use of the terrace would cause nuisance. 48. The roof level of the higher element of the development would be occupied by a 7.0m plant space that would be covered by a louvred screen. 49. At ground level, the main office entrance would be located centrally on the Fenchurch Street elevation. The retail units would have entrances on the chamfered corners. 50. The sculptural design of the building is considered to create a positive relationship with the new generation of contemporary office developments in the eastern City. London Views Management Framework and Tower of London Local Setting Study 51. At 94.85m AOD, the proposed building would form part of the foot hills on the edge of the Eastern Cluster and would be somewhat taller than most of its neighbours.

Page 36 52. In the view from the north bastion of , the south-eastern corner of the proposed building would be visible behind Minster Court and would not appear taller than Plantation Place. The view of the Tower of London is not affected. 53. In the view from , the proposed development would be hidden behind buildings in the foreground. 54. In the views from , the proposed building would appear in the gap between 20 Fenchurch Street and the Eastern Cluster, as would the approved 6.97m lower 120 Fenchurch Street and the taller 40 Leadenhall Street further east in the view, infilling the same gap to a slightly lesser degree. The drop in building heights between 20 Fenchurch Street and the southern edge of the Cluster would still clearly be visible. 55. In the kinetic view from Queens Walk at City Hall the proposed building would be visible between Plantation Place and Minster Court at a similar height resulting in a minor addition to the background of the view. 56. In views 2 and 5 identified by the Tower of London Local Setting Study (part of the Historic Royal Palaces Management Plan) as key views from the Tower towards the Eastern Cluster the proposed building would be obscured from view by foreground buildings. 57. Overall, the impact of the development on the strategic views is considered to be insignificant. A small infill of the Fenchurch Street “gap” between the Cluster and 20 Fenchurch Street would be a general consequence of the greater height of new developments in Fenchurch Street and is not considered to impact on the setting of St Paul’s Cathedral or to compromise the distinctive profile of the Eastern Cluster’s skyline. Local Views and the setting of Leadenhall Market Conservation Area and listed buildings 58. In the view of St Paul’s Cathedral from Ludgate Hill and Fleet Street, the proposed development would be entirely concealed by buildings on the north side of Fleet Street. 59. The visual impact of the proposed development on the local townscape and on the setting of Leadenhall Conservation Area and listed buildings in the vicinity has been tested from several viewing points along Fenchurch Street, from Cullum Street and from Fenchurch Avenue looking south through Fen Court. 60. Only one listed building, the grade II listed 37-39 Lime Street, is close to the application site. Although the rear of the new development would abut the rear of the listed building site boundary, these two buildings would not be visible together from any public viewing points. There are no other listed buildings in the vicinity that can be seen in context with the proposed development. 61. The continuous curve of Fenchurch Street and the dense townscape prevent the new building from being seen fully in long distance views

Page 37 and from being perceived to be too prominent in the historic context. Other than from Cullum Street, the proposed building would not be visible from any public viewing points within the Leadenhall Market Conservation Area or in context with the conservation area. 62. Due to the curve of Fenchurch Street, the view from Fenchurch Street looking west focusses on the tall building of 20 Fenchurch Street, with the existing building on site and Plantation Place opposite showing matching heights. The upper part of the proposed building would not be overly prominent in the view due to 20 Fenchurch Street dominating the background and the approved, almost as tall 120 Fenchurch Street, in the foreground. 63. In the view east along Fenchurch Street from the corner with Rood Lane the new building would mostly be seen above the roof line of its neighbouring buildings to the west, punctuating the street scene with its tower-like appearance. Moving further east, the Fenchurch Street frontage becomes visible showing the proposed building reinforcing the northern building line which currently is weakened by the existing tower and podium. 64. The view north from Mincing Lane is framed by large, modern developments and focusses on the tall Leadenhall and Willis buildings in the background behind the site which would be obscured by the proposed building. The proposed building design would be prominent in this view but would not harm the townscape view. 65. The view east along Cullum Street is the only view of the new development visible from the conservation area. The new building would be in marked contrast to the scale of the conservation area but is a juxtaposition not untypical of the conservation area. 66. The lower rear part of the new building is visible from the south through Fen Court. The view would be framed by the approved 120 Fenchurch Street building (under construction) and the 1930s No 40 Lime Street and focusses on the new building that, contrary to the existing development, would block the view through the passage. However, the pure form created by the fluted glass facade would provide visual interest and in this perspective would not visually overwhelm the other buildings in this view. Wind 67. The applicants have carried out a desk top study that indicates that the wind microclimate at ground level around the site would have wind conditions similar to the existing as, in relation to the prevailing south- west wind, the site lies in the ‘Wind Shadow’ of the tall buildings to the south (20 Fenchurch Street and Plantation Place). However, a full Pedestrian Comfort Assessment will be required by condition. Daylight and Sunlight 68. Loss of daylight and outlook is a material planning consideration. Policy DM10.7 of the Local Plan seeks “To resist development which would reduce noticeably the daylight and sunlight available to nearby

Page 38 dwellings and open spaces to levels which would be contrary to the Building Research Establishment’s guidelines”. 69. A report has been submitted analysing the effect of the proposal on daylight and sunlight to residential units at: • The Grapes Public House, Lime Street • East India Arms Public House, Fenchurch Street • Clothworkers Hall, Gracechurch Street 70. The analysis has been carried out in accordance with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight”. The guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory and need to be interpreted flexibly, taking into account other factors which might also affect the site. 71. The analysis indicates that the neighbouring residential properties would continue to meet the BRE criteria for Vertical Sky Component (VSC), No Skyline (NSL), Average Daylight Factor (ADF) and Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) with no noticeable loss of daylight or sunlight . Amenity Space 72. The BRE guidance on sunlight to a garden or amenity area advices that for it to be adequately sunlit throughout the year no more than 40%, and preferably no more than 25%, should be in permanent shade on 21st March. 73. The amenity space of Fen Court has very low levels of sunlight with 99.63% of the area in permanent shade and, therefore, does not meet the BRE criteria in terms of sunlight. The increased massing of the proposed building would result in 100% of the area being in permanent shade. 74. While this is a concern any proposed development that filled out the podium site would result in the area being in permanent shade irrespective of the building design. 75. The Open Spaces Department have advised that the area is likely to need replanting to incorporate more shade tolerant plant species. This would be at the applicant’s cost and would form part of the legal agreements under s.106. Other Properties 76. There are no other residential premises where daylight or sunlight would be affected by this proposal. Cleaning 77. External cleaning and maintenance of the facades would be carried out via two building maintenance units that would be parked within an enclosure on the roof terrace to the north (15 storeys) and within the rooftop plant enclosure to the southern (17 storeys) part of the building.

Page 39 Sustainability and Energy 78. As part of the supporting documentation, the applicants have submitted a Sustainability Statement and an Energy Strategy. The building has been designed to include a high performance façade, energy efficient lighting and energy efficient building services. The proposed energy efficiency measures would achieve a 29.6% improvement of carbon dioxide emissions on a building regulations (2010) compliant building. 79. The connection of the development into a district heating network is currently not possible but the opportunity for a future connection would be provided. Due to the low heating demand of this type of building, the incorporation of a site wide Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system is not considered to be feasible. 80. The energy strategy includes the incorporation of PV panels (ca 108sq.m.) into the roof layout which potentially could add a further 1% of carbon dioxide emissions savings. The total reduction in carbon dioxide emissions savings would be 30.1% which would constitute a shortfall of ca. 10% from current London Plan target of 40%. Based on the 2010 Building Regulations, offset payments may be required if evidence cannot be provided to demonstrate that this building type cannot meet the target on site. 81. The building would have the potential to score a BREEAM 2011 New Construction rating of “excellent”. 82. Climate change adaptation and sustainable design measures include the incorporation of planting and insect and bird boxes on the 15 th floor terrace and the installation of a combined stormwater attenuation and rainwater harvesting tank to combat local flooding. The sustainability statement briefly addresses sustainable materials, conserving water resources, waste management, pollution, urban greening and biodiversity. Demolition and Construction 83. A Demolition and Construction Method Statement for the scheme will be required by condition. Archaeology 84. The site is in an area of archaeological potential, located to the east of the Roman Basilica-forum and Roman road may cross the western part of the site. There is potential for remains from all periods to survive, including Roman buildings and road evidence, medieval and post medieval structures. The churchyard of St Mary Fenchurch abuts the north east edge of the site. It is possible that human remains survive in this area as in the medieval period the burial ground was larger. There has been archaeological recording in limited areas prior to construction of the existing building and in advance of work for new foundations when Roman and post medieval remains were recorded. An Historic Environment Assessment addendum of the archaeology of the site and impact of the proposals has been submitted with the application.

Page 40 85. The existing building has a basement at different levels and a small sub-basement. Archaeological remains are considered to survive to different depths below the single basement and are not considered to survive below the sub-basement. The proposed development includes two new basement levels which would remove all archaeological remains. 86. Archaeological evaluation is necessary to provide additional information on the character, nature and date of archaeological survival on the site, including the extent of modern disturbance to assess the impact of the proposals, including foundations, temporary and enabling works and to design an appropriate mitigation strategy. 87. Conditions are recommended to cover archaeological evaluation, a programme of archaeological work and foundation design.

Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy 88. Under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 an agreement or planning obligation can be made between parties, usually the developer and the local authority, or a unilateral undertaking can be submitted by a prospective developer: • restricting the development or use of land in any specified way; • requiring specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on or under or over the land; • requiring the land to be used in any specified way; or • requiring a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically. 89. Planning obligation arrangements were modified by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended (‘the CIL Regulations’). The Regulations introduce statutory restrictions on the use of planning obligations to clarify their proper purpose, and make provision for planning obligations to work alongside any Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’) arrangements which local planning authorities may elect to adopt. 90. Regulation 122 states that it is unlawful for a planning obligation to constitute a reason to grant planning permission when determining a planning application if the obligation does not meet all the following tests: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development 91. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) stated that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. The policy

Page 41 repeated the tests set out above and states that where planning obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. (NPPF paragraphs 203-206). Mayor of London Policies Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 92. London Plan Policy 8.3 requires the Mayoral CIL to be paid by developers to help fund strategically important infrastructure, initially focussing on Crossrail until 2019. The Mayor has set a charge of £50 per sq.m and this applies to all development over 100sq.m (GIA) except social housing, education related development, health related development and development for charities for charitable purposes. Mayoral Planning Obligations 93. Since April 2010 the Mayor of London has sought contributions towards the cost of funding Crossrail through the negotiation of planning obligations in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.5. Mayoral planning obligations are payable by developers according to an indicative level of charges for specific uses set out in the Mayoral SPG (April 2013): offices (£140 per sq.m net gain in GIA floorspace), retail (£90) and hotels (£61) provided there is a net gain of 500sq.m. 94. Developments that are liable for both Mayoral CIL and Mayoral planning obligations payments for Crossrail, the Mayor will not double charge. His approach is to treat Mayoral CIL payment as a credit towards Mayor planning obligation liability. Therefore the Mayoral planning obligation liability can be reduced by the Mayoral CIL. 95. At the time of preparing this report the Mayoral CIL has been calculated to be £1,254,450 The full Mayoral planning obligation has been calculated to be £3,567,210 This would be reduced to £2,312,760 after deduction of the Mayoral CIL. It should be noted that these figures may be subject to change should there be a variation in the CIL liability at the point of payment and should therefore only be taken as indicative figures at this point. 96. Under the CIL regulations the City Corporation is able to retain 4% of the Mayoral CIL income as an administration fee; the remainder will be forwarded to the Mayor of London. The whole of the Mayoral planning obligation income received will be forwarded to the Mayor. However, the developer will also be liable to pay an additional £3,500 Mayoral planning obligation administration and monitoring charge to the City Corporation. The total contributions due in accordance with the Mayoral CIL and Mayoral planning obligation policies are summarised below:

Page 42

Liability in Contribution Forwarded Retained by accordance £ to the City with the Mayor Mayor Corporation of London’s policies Mayoral 1,245,450 1,204,272 50,178 Community Infrastructure Levy payable Mayoral 2,312,760 2,312,760 Nil planning obligation net liability* Mayoral 3,500 Nil 3,500 planning obligation administration and monitoring charge

Total liability in 3,570,710 3,517,032 53,678 accordance

with the Mayor of London’s policies *Net liability is on the basis of the CIL charge remaining as reported and could be subject to variation. City of London’s Planning Obligations SPG policy City Planning Obligations City CIL 97. The City introduced its CIL on 1 st July 2014 and will be chargeable in addition to the Mayoral CIL and Mayoral planning obligations. CIL will be charged at a rate of £75 per sqm for Offices, £150 for Residential Riverside, £95 for Residential rest of the city and £75 for all other uses. At the time of preparing this report the City CIL has been calculated to be £1,881,675. It should be noted that these figures may be subject to change should there be a variation in the CIL liability at the point of payment and should therefore only be taken as indicative figures at this point. 98. Under the CIL regulations the City Corporation is able to retain 5% of the CIL income as an administration fee. The contributions collected will be used to fund the infrastructure required to meet the requirements of the City’s Development Plan.

Page 43 99. On 1 st July 2014 the City’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations was adopted. City Planning Obligations would be payable by developers in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD on new commercial developments where there is a net increase of 500sq.m or more of Gross Internal Area. The policy seeks contributions towards Affordable Housing (£20 per sq.m), Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage (£3 per sq.m) and Carbon Offsetting (£60 per tonne of carbon offset). 100. In this case the proposed net increase in floorspace would be 25,089sq.m. On the basis of the figure indicated in the Supplementary Planning Document, the planning obligation figure would be £577,047. It is the City’s practice that all financial contributions should be index- linked with reference to the appropriate index from the date of adoption of the SPD to the date of permission. 101. The applicant has agreed a breakdown which accords with the Supplementary Planning Document as follows:

Liability in accordance Contribution Available for Retained for Allocation Monitoring with the City of £ Charge £ London’s policies £ City Community 1,881,675 1,787,591 94,084 Infrastructure Levy City Planning Obligation 501,780 496,762 5,018 Affordable Housing City Planning Obligation 75,267 74,514 753 Local, Training, Skills and Job Brokerage Non-Financial Planning 1,750 Nil 1,750 Obligation Monitoring Charge Total liability in 2,460,472 2,358,868 101,604 accordance with the City of London’s policies

102. I have set out below the details that I am recommending concerning the planning obligations. All of the proposals are considered to be necessary to make the application acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and meet the above tests contained in the CIL Regulations and in government policy. I would also request that I be given delegated authority to continue to negotiate and agree the terms of the proposed obligations as necessary.

Page 44 Affordable Housing 103. The Affordable Housing contribution will be used for the purpose of off- site provision of affordable housing in suitable locations in or near to the City of London in accordance with the London Plan. The applicant will be required to pay this contribution on or before the implementation of the planning permission. Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage 104. The Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage contribution will be applied to the provision of training and skills initiatives, including job brokerage, in the City or City fringes. The Developer will be required to pay this contribution on or before the implementation of planning permission. Highway Reparation and other Highways obligations 105. The cost of any reparation works required as a result of the development will be the responsibility of the Developer. 106. If required, prior to implementation and based on the City’s standard draft, the developer will be obligated to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to meet the cost of highway works that are necessary to meet the burden placed on the highway network by the development. Utility Connections 107. The development will require connection to a range of utility infrastructure. Early engagement by the applicant about utilities infrastructure provision will allow for proper co-ordination and planning of all works required to install the utility infrastructure, particularly under public highway, so as to minimise disruption to highway users. A s106 covenant will therefore require the submission of draft and final programmes for ordering and completing service connections from utility providers in order that the City's comments can be taken into account, and will require that all connections are carried out in accordance with the programme. Details of the utility connection requirements of the Development including all proposed service connections, communal entry chambers, the proposed service provider and the anticipated volume of units required for the Development will also be required. Method Statement, Plans and Audits Delivery and Servicing Management Plan (or by condition) 108. The developer would be required to submit for approval a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan prior to occupation. In the event of any breach of the Management Plan, the developer will be required to resubmit a revised document, and should the developer default on this requirement, the City will be given the ability to provide a replacement plan. The operation of the Delivery and Servicing Management Plan will be subject to an annual review.

Page 45 Travel Plan 109. The developer would be required to submit both interim and full Travel Plans prior to occupation and six months after occupation respectively. The obligations in relation to this shall apply for the life of the building Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage 110. The Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage contribution will be applied to the provision of training and skills initiatives, including job brokerage, in the City or City fringes. The Developer will be required to pay this contribution on or before the implementation of planning permission. Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage Strategy (Construction) 111. The applicant will be required to submit for approval details of the Local Training, Skills and Job Brokerage Strategy (Construction) in line with the aims of the City Corporation’s Employment Charter for Construction as outlined in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. This Charter aims to maximise job opportunities in the City for residents of the City fringes and offer employment and training opportunities to local people wishing to begin a career in construction. The Strategy will be submitted in two stages: one to be submitted prior to the First Preparatory Operation Date in respect of the Preparatory Operations; the second to be submitted prior to Implementation in respect of the Main Contract Works Package. 112. The Economic Development Office is able to introduce the Developer or its Contractor and Sub-Contractors to local training providers and brokerage agencies to discuss their site-specific skills needs and to identify suitable local people to fill opportunities on site. The Developer is encouraged to liaise with the Economic Development Office at the earliest stage in the development process in order that the strategy can be submitted prior to commencement. Local Procurement 113. The developer has agreed to submit for approval a Local Procurement Strategy prior to commencement of demolition. The Local Procurement Strategy shall include details of: initiatives to identify local procurement opportunities relating to the construction of the development; initiatives to reach a 10% target for local procurement, from small to medium sized enterprises in the City and City fringes; the timings and arrangements for the implementation of such initiatives; and suitable mechanisms for the monitoring of the effectiveness of such initiatives e.g. a local procurement tracker can be used to capture this information, in accordance with the Local Procurement Charter. 114. The developer will be required every 6 months and a final report no later than 6 months after occupation, to report to the City of London Corporation’s Economic Development Office on their performance against the 10% local procurement target. 115. The Economic Development Officer is able to provide information and guidance to the Developer its Contractor and Sub-Contractors. The

Page 46 Developer is encouraged to liaise with the Economic Development Officer at the earliest stage in the development process in order that the strategy can be submitted prior to implementation Carbon Offsetting 116. The London Plan sets a target for major developments to achieve an overall carbon dioxide emission reduction of 40% from 2013-2016, through the use of on-site renewable energy generation. A detailed assessment will be required and if the assessment demonstrated that the target is not met on site the applicant will be required to meet the shortfall through a cash in lieu contribution. The contribution will be secured through the section 106 agreement, at an initial cost of £60 per tonne of carbon to be offset, calculated over a 30 year period. The financial contribution for carbon off-setting will be required on completion or prior occupation of development. Monitoring and Administrative Costs 117. A 10 year repayment period would be required where by any unallocated sums would be returned to the developer 10 years after practical completion of the development. 118. The applicant will pay the City of London’s legal costs incurred in the negotiation and execution of the legal agreement and the City Planning Officer’s administration costs in respect of the same. 1% of the total contribution (secured under the City’s SPG) will be allocated to the monitoring of the agreement. 119. Separate additional administration and monitoring fees will be applied in relation to the Crossrail Contribution. Site Specific Mitigation 120. The City Corporation will principally seek to mitigate the impact of development and provide necessary infrastructure through the use of CIL but, in some circumstances, it may be necessary additionally to seek site specific mitigation to ensure that a development is acceptable in planning terms. Other matters requiring mitigation are still yet to be fully scoped.

Conclusion 121. The proposal supports the City’s strategic objective to promote the City as the leading international financial and business centre. 122. The scheme provides an employment led, mixed use development which supports the economic policies of the adopted Local Plan and the London Plan and provides an increase in high quality floorspace suitable for major occupiers and/or other users and support accommodation in this part of the City.

Page 47 123. The scheme’s reliance on public transport meets the transport policies in the London Plan and Local Plan. This will have the benefits of maintaining the strength of the City in economic terms and making effective and efficient use of the infrastructure necessary to sustain such concentrations of development. 124. The proposed building would sit within the “foothills” of the eastern cluster. The facade treatment and materials would distinguish this building from other tall buildings in the vicinity. 125. This development would not detract from the City’s conservation areas, listed buildings or be detrimental to the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. 126. The proposal, due to its height and form would provide a distinctive building whose sculptural design creates a prominent juxtaposition with the townscape that is considered to create a positive relationship with the new generation of contemporary office developments in the Eastern Cluster. 127. The proposal is substantially in compliance with the provisions of the development Plan. 128. I recommend planning permission be granted as set out in the Recommendation and Schedule.

Page 48 Background Papers Internal Email 23.07.2014 Open Spaces Department Email 04.08.2014 Open Spaces Department Memo 05.08.2014 City of London Markets and Consumer Protection, Pollution Team External Email 10.07.2014 Environment Agency Email 11.07.2014 Thames Water Letter 17.07.2014 English Heritage Letter 28.07.2014 LB Islington Letter 28.07.2014 LB Tower Hamlets Letter 04.08.2014 City of Westminster Letter 12.08.2014 LB Southwark Application Documents Planning Statement by GVA rec’d 20.05.2014

Planning Access Statement by David Bonnett Associates rec’d 20.05.2014

Townscape and Visual Impact Report by Peter Stewart Consultancy rec’d 20.05.2014

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan by WSP rec’d 20.05.2014

Waste Management Strategy by WSP rec’d 20.05.2014

Energy Statement by Hilson Moran rec’d 20.05.2014

Sustainability Statement and BREEAM Pre-Assessment by Hilson Moran 20.05.2014

BREEAM 2011 – Prediction Report for Planning by Hilson Moran rec’d 20.05.2014

Overshadowing Study by Delva Patman Redler rec’d 20.05.2014

Noise Survey Report by Hilson Moran rec’d 20.05.2014

Historic Environment Assessment by Archaeology rec’d 20.05.2014

Flood Risk Assessment by Hilson Moran rec’d 20.05.2014

Page 49 Tree Survey Report by Susan Deakin Ecology rec’d 20.05.2014

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Study by Delva Patman Redler rec’d 20.06.2014 Amendments by FMA rec’d 18.12.2014 Wind Microclimate Initial Studies CFD Analysis by Hilson Moran rec’d 23.01.2015 Design and Access Statement by FMA rec’d 03.02.2015 Drawings: FMA-00-E-003-00, FMA-00-E-004-00, FMA-00-E-050-00, FMA-00- E-050a-00, FMA-00-E-051-00, FMA-00-E-052-00, FMA-00-GA-053-00, FMA- 00-GA-054-00; FMA-00-BE-301-03; AL152 Rev. A; 2500-SK-06 Rev. A.

Page 50 Appendix A London Plan Policies The London Plan is part of the development plan for the City. As such the London Plan is a material consideration to which the City of London Corporation must have regard in exercising its development control powers. The London Plan policies which are most relevant to this application are set out below: • Policy 2.10 Enhance and promote the unique international, national and London wide roles of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and as a strategically important, globally-oriented financial and business services centre. • Policy 2.11 Ensure that developments proposals to increase office floorspace within CAZ include a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in the plan. • Policy 4.2 Support the management and mixed use development and redevelopment of office provision to improve London’s competitiveness and to address the wider objectives of this Plan, including enhancing its varied attractions for businesses of different types and sizes. • Policy 4.3 Within the Central Activities Zone increases in office floorspace should provide for a mix of uses including housing, unless such a mix would demonstrably conflict with other policies in this plan. • Policy 5.2 Development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions. • Policy 5.3 Development proposals should demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation. Major development proposals should meet the minimum standards outlined in supplementary planning guidance • Policy 5.7 Major development proposals should provide a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on-site renewable energy generation, where feasible. • Policy 6.3 Development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network are fully assessed. • Policy 6.5 Contributions will be sought from developments likely to add to, or create, congestion on London’s rail network that Crossrail is intended to mitigate. • Policy 6.9 Developments should provide secure, integrated and accessible cycle parking facilities and provide on-site changing facilities and showers for cyclists, facilitate the Cycle

Page 51 Super Highways and facilitate the central London cycle hire scheme. • 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; (e) Incorporate best practice in resource management and climate change mitigation and adaptation; (f) Provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the surrounding streets and open spaces; (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 7.7 Tall and large buildings should be part of a plan- led approach to changing or developing an area by the identification of appropriate, sensitive and inappropriate locations. Tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings. Applications for tall or large buildings should include an urban design analysis that demonstrates the proposal is part of a strategy that will meet the criteria set out in this policy. • 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 7.12 New development should not harm and where possible should make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and their landmark elements identified in the London View Management Framework. It should also, where possible, preserve viewers' ability to recognise and to appreciate Strategically Important Landmarks in these views and, where appropriate, protect the silhouette of landmark elements of World Heritage Sites as seen from designated Viewing Places.

Page 52 • Policy 7.13 Development proposals should contribute to the minimisation of potential physical risks, including those arising as a result of fire, flood and related hazards. • Policy 7.14 Implement Air Quality and Transport strategies to achieve reductions in pollutant emissions and minimise public exposure to pollution.

Relevant Local Plan Policies

CS1 Provide additional offices

To ensure the City of London provides additional office development of the highest quality to meet demand from long term employment growth and strengthen the beneficial cluster of activities found in and near the City that contribute to London's role as the world's leading international financial and business centre.

DM3.2 Security measures

To ensure that security measures are included in new developments, applied to existing buildings and their curtilage, by requiring:

a) building-related security measures, including those related to the servicing of the building, to be located within the development's boundaries; b) measures to be integrated with those of adjacent buildings and the public realm; c) that security is considered at the concept design or early developed design phases of all development proposals to avoid the need to retro-fit measures that impact on the public realm; d) developers to seek recommendations from the City of London Police Architectural Liaison Officer at the design stage. New development should meet Secured by Design principles; e) the provision of service management plans for all large development, demonstrating that vehicles seeking access to the building can do so without waiting on the public highway; f) an assessment of the environmental impact of security measures, particularly addressing visual impact and impact on pedestrian flows.

CS4 Seek planning contributions

To manage the impact of development, seeking appropriate developer contributions.

Page 53 CS7 Meet challenges of Eastern Cluster

To ensure that the Eastern Cluster can accommodate a significant growth in office floorspace and employment, while balancing the accommodation of tall buildings, transport, public realm and security and spread the benefits to the surrounding areas of the City.

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 in 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.

Page 54 DM10.3 Roof gardens and terraces

1) To encourage high quality roof gardens and terraces where they do not:

a) immediately overlook residential premises; b) adversely affect rooflines or roof profiles; c) result in the loss of historic or locally distinctive roof forms, features or coverings; d) impact on identified views.

2) Public access will be sought where feasible in new development.

DM10.5 Shopfronts

To ensure that shopfronts are of a high standard of design and appearance and to resist inappropriate designs and alterations. Proposals for shopfronts should:

a) respect the quality and architectural contribution of any existing shopfront; b) respect the relationship between the shopfront, the building and its context; c) use high quality and sympathetic materials; d) include signage only in appropriate locations and in proportion to the shopfront; e) consider the impact of the installation of louvres, plant and access to refuse storage; f) incorporate awnings and canopies only in locations where they would not harm the appearance of the shopfront or obstruct architectural features; g) not include openable shopfronts or large serving openings where they would have a harmful impact on the appearance of the building and/or amenity; h) resist external shutters and consider other measures required for security; i) consider the internal treatment of shop windows (displays and opaque windows) and the contribution to passive surveillance; j) be designed to allow access by users, for example, incorporating level entrances and adequate door widths.

DM10.7 Daylight and sunlight

1) To resist development which would reduce noticeably the daylight and sunlight available to nearby dwellings and open spaces to unacceptable levels, taking account of the Building Research Establishment's guidelines.

Page 55 2) The design of new developments should allow for the lighting needs of intended occupiers and provide acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight.

DM10.8 Access and inclusive design

To achieve an environment that meets the highest standards of accessibility and inclusive design in all developments (both new and refurbished), open spaces and streets, ensuring that the City of London is:

a) inclusive and safe for of all who wish to use it, regardless of disability, age, gender, ethnicity, faith or economic circumstance; b) convenient and welcoming with no disabling barriers, ensuring that everyone can experience independence without undue effort, separation or special treatment; c) responsive to the needs of all users who visit, work or live in the City, whilst recognising that one solution might not work for all.

DM12.1 Change affecting heritage assets

1. To sustain and enhance heritage assets, their settings and significance.

2. Development proposals, including proposals for telecommunications infrastructure, that have an effect upon heritage assets, including their settings, should be accompanied by supporting information to assess and evaluate the significance of heritage assets and the degree of impact caused by the development.

3. The loss of routes and spaces that contribute to the character and historic interest of the City will be resisted.

4. Development will be required to respect the significance, character, scale and amenities of surrounding heritage assets and spaces and their settings.

5. Proposals for sustainable development, including the incorporation of climate change adaptation measures, must be sensitive to heritage assets.

CS13 Protect/enhance significant views

To protect and enhance significant City and London views of important buildings, townscape and skylines, making a substantial contribution to protecting the overall heritage of the City's landmarks.

Page 56 CS14 Tall buildings in suitable places

To allow tall buildings of world class architecture and sustainable design in suitable locations and to ensure that they take full account of the character of their surroundings, enhance the skyline and provide a high quality public realm at ground level.

DM15.1 Sustainability requirements

1. Sustainability Statements must be submitted with all planning applications in order to ensure that sustainability is integrated into designs for all development.

2. For major development (including new development and refurbishment) the Sustainability Statement should include as a minimum:

a) BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment; b) an energy statement in line with London Plan requirements; c) demonstration of climate change resilience measures.

3. BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes assessments should demonstrate sustainability in aspects which are of particular significance in the City's high density urban environment. Developers should aim to achieve the maximum possible credits to address the City's priorities.

4. Innovative sustainability solutions will be encouraged to ensure that the City's buildings remain at the forefront of sustainable building design. Details should be included in the Sustainability Statement.

5. Planning conditions will be used to ensure that Local Plan assessment targets are met.

DM15.2 Energy and CO2 emissions

1. Development design must take account of location, building orientation, internal layouts and landscaping to reduce likely energy consumption.

2. For all major development energy assessments must be submitted with the application demonstrating:

a) energy efficiency - showing the maximum improvement over current Building Regulations to achieve the required Fabric Energy Efficiency Standards; b) carbon compliance levels required to meet national targets for zero carbon development using low and zero carbon technologies, where feasible; c) where on-site carbon emission reduction is unviable, offsetting of residual CO2 emissions through "allowable solutions" for the lifetime

Page 57 of the building to achieve national targets for zero-carbon homes and non-domestic buildings. Achievement of zero carbon buildings in advance of national target dates will be encouraged; d) anticipated residual power loads and routes for supply.

DM15.3 Low and zero carbon technologies

1. For development with a peak heat demand of 100 kilowatts or more developers should investigate the feasibility and viability of connecting to existing decentralised energy networks. This should include investigation of the potential for extensions of existing heating and cooling networks to serve the development and development of new networks where existing networks are not available. Connection routes should be designed into the development where feasible and connection infrastructure should be incorporated wherever it is viable.

2. Where connection to offsite decentralised energy networks is not feasible, installation of on-site CCHP and the potential to create new localised decentralised energy infrastructure through the export of excess heat must be considered

3. Where connection is not feasible or viable, all development with a peak heat demand of 100 kilowatts or more should be designed to enable connection to potential future decentralised energy networks.

4. Other low and zero carbon technologies must be evaluated. Non combustion based technologies should be prioritised in order to avoid adverse impacts on air quality.

DM15.4 Offsetting carbon emissions

1. All feasible and viable on-site or near-site options for carbon emission reduction must be applied before consideration of offsetting. Any remaining carbon emissions calculated for the lifetime of the building that cannot be mitigated on-site will need to be offset using "allowable solutions".

2. Where carbon targets cannot be met on-site the City Corporation will require carbon abatement elsewhere or a financial contribution, negotiated through a S106 planning obligation to be made to an approved carbon offsetting scheme.

3. Offsetting may also be applied to other resources including water resources and rainwater run-off to meet sustainability targets off- site where on-site compliance is not feasible.

Page 58 DM15.6 Air quality

1. Developers will be required to consider the impact of their proposals on air quality and, where appropriate, provide an Air Quality Impact Assessment.

2. Development that would result in deterioration of the City's nitrogen dioxide or PM10 pollution levels will be resisted.

3. Major developments will be required to maximise credits for the pollution section of the BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes assessment relating to on-site emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

4. Developers will be encouraged to install non-combustion low and zero carbon energy technology. A detailed air quality impact assessment will be required for combustion based low and zero carbon technologies, such as CHP plant and biomass or biofuel boilers, and necessary mitigation must be approved by the City Corporation.

5. Construction and deconstruction and the transport of construction materials and waste must be carried out in such a way as to minimise air quality impacts.

6. Air intake points should be located away from existing and potential pollution sources (e.g. busy roads and combustion flues). All combustion flues should terminate above the roof height of the tallest building in the development in order to ensure maximum dispersion of pollutants.

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.

Page 59 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.

DM15.8 Contaminated land

Where development involves ground works or the creation of open spaces, developers will be expected to carry out a detailed site investigation to establish whether the site is contaminated and to determine the potential for pollution of the water environment or harm to human health and non-human receptors. Suitable mitigation must be identified to remediate any contaminated land and prevent potential adverse impacts of the development on human and non-human receptors, land or water quality.

DM16.1 Transport impacts of development

1. Development proposals that are likely to have effects on transport must be accompanied by an assessment of the transport implications during both construction and operation, in particular addressing impacts on:

a) road dangers; b) pedestrian environment and movement; c) cycling infrastructure provision; d) public transport; e) the street network.

2. Transport Assessments and Travel Plans should be used to demonstrate adherence to the City Corporation's transportation standards.

DM16.2 Pedestrian movement

1. Pedestrian movement must be facilitated by provision of suitable pedestrian routes through and around new developments, by maintaining pedestrian routes at ground level, and the upper level walkway network around the Barbican and London Wall.

2. The loss of a pedestrian route will normally only be permitted where an alternative public pedestrian route of at least an equivalent standard is provided having regard to:

Page 60 a) the extent to which the route provides for current and all reasonably foreseeable future demands placed upon it, including at peak periods; b) the shortest practicable routes between relevant points.

3. Routes of historic importance should be safeguarded as part of the City's characteristic pattern of lanes, alleys and courts, including the route's historic alignment and width.

4. The replacement of a route over which pedestrians have rights, with one to which the public have access only with permission will not normally be acceptable.

5. Public access across private land will be encouraged where it enhances the connectivity, legibility and capacity of the City's street network. Spaces should be designed so that signage is not necessary and it is clear to the public that access is allowed.

6. The creation of new pedestrian rights of way will be encouraged where this would improve movement and contribute to the character of an area, taking into consideration pedestrian routes and movement in neighbouring areas and boroughs, where relevant.

DM16.3 Cycle parking

1. On-site cycle parking must be provided in accordance with the local standards set out in Table 16.2 or, for other land uses, with the standards of the London Plan. Applicants will be encouraged to exceed the standards set out in Table 16.2.

2. On-street cycle parking in suitable locations will be encouraged to meet the needs of cyclists.

DM16.4 Encouraging active travel

1. Ancillary facilities must be provided within new and refurbished buildings to support active transport modes such as walking, cycling and running. All commercial development should make sufficient provision for showers, changing areas and lockers/storage to cater for employees wishing to engage in active travel.

2. Where facilities are to be shared with a number of activities they should be conveniently located to serve all proposed activities.

Page 61 DM16.5 Parking and servicing standards

1. Developments in the City should be car-free except for designated Blue Badge spaces. Where other car parking is exceptionally provided it must not exceed London Plan's standards.

2. Designated parking must be provided for Blue Badge holders within developments in conformity with London Plan requirements and must be marked out and reserved at all times for their use. Disabled parking spaces must be at least 2.4m wide and at least 4.8m long and with reserved areas at least 1.2m wide, marked out between the parking spaces and at the rear of the parking spaces.

3. Except for dwelling houses (use class C3), whenever any car parking spaces (other than designated Blue Badge parking) are provided, motor cycle parking must be provided at a ratio of 10 motor cycle parking spaces per 1 car parking space. At least 50% of motor cycle parking spaces must be at least 2.3m long and at least 0.9m wide and all motor cycle parking spaces must be at least 2.0m long and at least 0.8m wide.

4. On site servicing areas should be provided to allow all goods and refuse collection vehicles likely to service the development at the same time to be conveniently loaded and unloaded. Such servicing areas should provide sufficient space or facilities for all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. Headroom of at least 5m where skips are to be lifted and 4.75m for all other vehicle circulation areas should be provided.

5. Coach parking facilities for hotels (use class C1) will not be permitted.

6. All off-street car parking spaces and servicing areas must be equipped with the facility to conveniently recharge electric vehicles.

7. Taxi ranks are encouraged at key locations, such as stations, hotels and shopping centres. The provision of taxi ranks should be designed to occupy the minimum practicable space, using a combined entry and exit point to avoid obstruction to other transport modes.

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.

Page 62 DM17.2 Designing out construction waste

New development should be designed to minimise the impact of deconstruction and construction waste on the environment through:

a) reuse of existing structures; b) building design which minimises wastage and makes use of recycled materials; c) recycling of deconstruction waste for reuse on site where feasible; d) transport of waste and construction materials by rail or river wherever practicable; e) application of current best practice with regard to air quality, dust, hazardous waste, waste handling and waste management

DM18.1 Development in Flood Risk Area

1. Where development is proposed within the City Flood Risk Area evidence must be presented to demonstrate that:

a) the site is suitable for the intended use (see table 18.1), in accordance with Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority advice; b) the benefits of the development outweigh the flood risk to future occupants; c) the development will be safe for occupants and visitors and will not compromise the safety of other premises or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

2. Development proposals, including change of use, must be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment for:

a) all sites within the City Flood Risk Area as shown on the Policies Map; and b) all major development elsewhere in the City.

3. Site specific flood risk assessments must address the risk of flooding from all sources and take account of the City of London Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Necessary mitigation measures must be designed into and integrated with the development and may be required to provide protection from flooding for properties beyond the site boundaries, where feasible and viable.

4. Where development is within the City Flood Risk Area, the most vulnerable uses must be located in those parts of the development which are at least risk. Safe access and egress routes must be identified.

5. For minor development outside the City Flood Risk Area, an appropriate flood risk statement may be included in the Design and Access Statement.

Page 63

6. Flood resistant and resilient designs which reduce the impact of flooding and enable efficient recovery and business continuity will be encouraged.

DM18.2 Sustainable drainage systems

1. The design of the surface water drainage system should be integrated into the design of proposed buildings or landscaping, where feasible and practical, and should follow the SuDS management train (Fig T) and London Plan drainage hierarchy.

2. SuDS designs must take account of the City's archaeological heritage, complex underground utilities, transport infrastructure and other underground structures, incorporating suitable SuDS elements for the City's high density urban situation.

3. SuDS should be designed, where possible, to maximise contributions to water resource efficiency, biodiversity enhancement and the provision of multifunctional open spaces.

DM19.2 Biodiversity and urban greening

Developments should promote biodiversity and contribute to urban greening by incorporating:

a) green roofs and walls, soft landscaping and trees; b) features for wildlife, such as nesting boxes and beehives; c) a planting mix which encourages biodiversity; d) planting which will be resilient to a range of climate conditions; e) maintenance of habitats within Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.

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:

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.

Page 64 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.

DM20.2 Retail links

To encourage the provision and resist the loss of retail frontage and floorspace within the Retail Links. A mix of shops and other retail uses will be encouraged in the Links, ensuring that the location and balance of uses does not adversely affect the function of the Link, any nearby PSC or their surrounding areas.

DM20.3 Retail uses elsewhere

To resist the loss of isolated and small groups of retail units outside the PSCs and Retail Links that form an active retail frontage, particularly A1 units near residential areas, unless it is demonstrated that they are no longer needed.

DM20.4 Retail unit sizes

1. Proposals for new retail uses should provide a variety of unit sizes compatible with the character of the area in which they are situated.

2. Major retail units (over 1,000sq.m) will be encouraged in PSCs and, where appropriate, in the Retail Links in accordance with the sequential test.

Page 65 SCHEDULE

APPLICATION: 14/00496/FULMAJ

130 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 5DJ

Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building of two basements, ground and 17 upper storeys comprising office (Class B1) use [40,502sq.m GEA] and flexible retail (Class A1/A3) floorspace [558sq.m GEA] and associated cycle parking, servicing, storage and plant. [Total 41,060sq.m GEA].

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 (a) No works except demolition to basement slab level shall take place until a full 'Lawson Criteria' Pedestrian Comfort Study and the details of any required wind mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These design details shall include the size and appearance of any structures; (b) The development shall be constructed strictly in accordance with the wind mitigation measures approved under the terms of this condition and no part of the building shall be occupied until all such measures have been implemented; (c) Any external features intended to provide wind mitigation, whether on the site or on the public highway, shall be maintained by the building owner(s) for the life of the building and any trees provided for this purpose that die or are damaged shall be replaced as often as is necessary to maintain the wind mitigation unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to ensure that proposed development does not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM.10.1, DM10.4.

3 Before the development hereby permitted is begun a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated and to determine the potential for pollution of the water environment. In the event that site contamination is found it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within five working days and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing

Page 66 unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and to the natural and historical environment must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority the remediation scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be submitted to and approved in writing of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM15.8.

4 Before the development hereby permitted is begun, impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure must be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. REASON: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand.

5 Details of facilities and methods to accommodate construction vehicles and deliveries during demolition and the construction of the building hereby approved are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of work and no demolition or construction shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details and methods. REASON: To ensure that the obstruction of the local highway network by construction vehicles is minimised in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM16.1.

6 A scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects during demolition shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any demolition taking place on the site. 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 set out therein. A staged scheme of protective works may be submitted in respect of individual stages of the demolition 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 demolition shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme

Page 67 REASON: In the interests of public safety and to ensure a minimal effect on the amenities of neighbouring premises and the transport network in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3.

7 A scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any construction work taking place on the site. 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 set out therein. A staged scheme of protective works may be submitted in respect of individual stages of the construction 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. REASON: In the interests of public safety and to ensure a minimal effect on the amenities of neighbouring premises and the transport network in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM15.7, DM21.3.

8 Before any piling or construction of basements is commenced a scheme for the provision of sewer vents within the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority the agreed scheme for the provision of sewer vents shall be implemented and brought into operation before the development is occupied and shall be so maintained for the life of the building. REASON: To vent sewerage odour from (or substantially from) the development hereby permitted and mitigate any adverse air pollution or environmental conditions in order to protect the amenity of the area in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM10.1.

9 The development shall incorporate such measures as are necessary within the site to resist structural damage arising from an attack with a road vehicle or road vehicle borne explosive device, details of which must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any works hereby permitted are begun. REASON: To ensure that the premises are protected from road vehicle borne damage within the site in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM3.2.

10 Archaeological evaluation shall be carried out in order to compile archaeological records in accordance with a timetable and scheme of such archaeological work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement of archaeological evaluation work.

Page 68 REASON: To ensure that an opportunity is provided for the archaeology of the site to be considered and recorded in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM12.4.

11 No works except demolition to basement slab level shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include all on site work, including details of any temporary works which may have an impact on the archaeology of the site and all off site work such as the analysis, publication and archiving of the results. All works shall be carried out and completed as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to allow an opportunity for investigations to be made in an area where remains of archaeological interest are understood to exist in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM12.4.

12 No works except demolition to basement slab level shall take place before details of the foundations and piling configuration, to include a detailed design and method statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to show the preservation of surviving archaeological remains which are to remain in situ. REASON: To ensure the preservation of archaeological remains following archaeological investigation in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM12.4.

13 No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water or sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the relevant water or sewerage undertaker. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. REASON: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground water and sewerage utility infrastructure.

14 Before any construction works hereby permitted are begun details of rainwater collection, harvesting and grey water recycling systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To improve sustainability and reduce flood risk by reducing potable water demands and water run-off rates in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.5 and DM18.1.

Page 69 15 Before any construction works hereby permitted are begun details of the installation of photovoltaic panels, as indicated on the drawings hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and shall be maintained as approved for the life of the development. REASON: To minimise carbon emissions and provide a sustainable development in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM10.1, DM15.1.

16 Before any works thereby affected are begun the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all development pursuant to this permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details: (a) particulars and samples of the materials to be used on all external faces of the building including external ground and upper level surfaces; (b) large scale (1:1) details of the proposed jointing, vertical and horizontal, of the facade glazing; (c) details of the graduated fritting to the facade glazing to include details of the colour, tone, intensity and finish; (d) large scale (1:10) details of ground floor elevations including entrances; (e) details of soffits, hand rails and balustrades; (f) details of junctions with adjoining premises; (g) details of the integration of window cleaning equipment and the garaging thereof, plant, flues, fire escapes and other excrescences at roof level (h) details of external surfaces within the site boundary including hard and soft landscaping, bird and insect boxes; (i) measures to be taken during the period of demolition and construction for the protection of the trees to be retained and details of any pruning of the trees; 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, DM10.3, DM12.1, DM15.7.

17 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 all the occupiers. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory servicing of the building in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM17.1.

18 The development shall be designed to allow for the retro-fit of heat exchanger rooms to connect into a district heating network if this becomes available during the lifetime of the development. REASON: To minimise carbon emissions by enabling the building to be connected to a district heating and cooling network if one becomes available during the life of the building in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.1, DM15.2, DM15.3, DM15.3, DM15.4.

Page 70

19 A post construction BREEAM assessment demonstrating that a target rating of 'Excellent' has been achieved (or such other target rating as the local planning authority may agree provided that it is satisfied all reasonable endeavours have been used to achieve an 'Excellent' rating) shall be submitted as soon as practicable after practical completion. REASON: To demonstrate that carbon emissions have been minimised and that the development is sustainable in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM15.1.

20 (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 nearest window or facade of the nearest premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with B.S. 4142. The background noise level shall be expressed as the lowest LA90 (10 minutes) during which plant is or may be in operation. 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. (b) 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential/commercial occupiers in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.7, DM21.3.

21 The 'Life Safety Generator' shall be used solely on brief intermittent and exceptional occasions when required in response to a life threatening emergency and for the testing necessary to meet that purpose and shall not be used at any other time. At all times the generator shall be operated to minimise its noise impact and a log of its use shall be maintained and be available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the generator, which does not meet City of London noise standards, is used only in response to a life threatening emergency situation.

22 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. The details approved must be implemented before the Class A use takes place.

Page 71 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.

23 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 including materials and construction method. The details approved must be implemented before the Class A use takes place and shall be so maintained thereafter for the life of the building. REASON:In order to protect residential/commercial amenities in the area in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM15.6, DM21.3.

24 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.

25 The Class A3 uses hereby permitted shall not be open to customers between the hours of 23:30 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.

26 Except as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority the loading and unloading areas must remain ancillary to the use of the building and shall be available at all times for that purpose for the occupiers thereof and visitors thereto. REASON: To ensure that satisfactory servicing is maintained in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM16.5.

27 Goods, including fuel, delivered or collected by vehicles arriving at or departing from the building shall not be accepted or dispatched unless the vehicles are unloaded or loaded within the curtilage of 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: DM16.1, DM16.5, DM21.3.

28 In respect of the Class A1 and/or Class A3 units, no live or recorded music shall be played that can be heard outside the premises or within any other premises in the building. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises and the area in general in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM15.7

Page 72 29 Permanently installed pedal cycle racks shall be provided and maintained on the site throughout the life of the building sufficient to accommodate a minimum of 312 pedal cycles. The cycle parking provided on the site must be available at all times throughout the life of the building for the sole use of the occupiers thereof and their visitors without charge to the individual end users of the parking. REASON: To ensure provision is made for cycle parking and to assist in reducing demand for public cycle parking in accordance with Transport for London guidance.

30 The changing facilities and showers adjacent to the bicycle parking areas and indicated on approved drawing A-099 Rev. A, shall be provided and maintained throughout the life of the building for the use of occupiers of the building. REASON: To make travel by bicycle more convenient in order to encourage greater use of bicycles by commuters in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM16.5

31 The pass door shown adjacent to or near to the main entrance on the drawings hereby approved shall remain unlocked and available for use at all times when the adjacent revolving doors are unlocked. REASON: In order to ensure that people with mobility disabilities are not discriminated against and to comply with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM10.8.

32 A clear unobstructed headroom of 5m must be maintained for the life of the buildings in the refuse skip collection area and a clear unobstructed headroom of 4.5m must be provided and maintained in all other areas (including access ways) to be used for loading and unloading. REASON: To ensure satisfactory servicing facilities in accordance with the following policy of the Local Plan: DM16.5

33 The threshold of all vehicular access points shall be at the same level as the rear of the adjoining footway. REASON: To maintain a level passage for pedestrians in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM10.8, DM16.2.

34 Prior to the occupation of any part of the building, the land between the existing building lines and the face of the proposed new building shall be brought up to street level, paved and drained in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall not be fenced or otherwise enclosed or obstructed.

REASON: To ensure compliance with building lines and to ensure a satisfactory treatment at ground level in accordance with the following policies of the Local Plan: DM10.1, DM10.8, DM16.2.

35 No doors or gates shall open over the public highway. REASON: In the interests of public safety

Page 73 36 The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the following approved drawings and particulars or as approved under conditions of this planning permission: Drawing nos: FMA-00-E-001-00, 002-00; FMA-00-GA-075-00, 076-03, 77-00, 78-00; FMA-P-GA-100-00, 101-03, 102-03, 103-01, 104-01, 105-01, 106-01, 107-01, 108-01, 109-01, 110-01; FMA-00-GA-111-00, 201-03, 202-03, 203-03, 204-03, 205-00, 206-00, 250-03, 251-03, 252- 03. REASON: To ensure that the development of this site is in compliance with details and particulars which have been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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 Core Strategy/ Unitary Development 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 This permission must in no way be deemed to prejudice any rights of light which may be enjoyed by the adjoining owners or occupiers under Common Law.

3 Access for people with disabilities is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The City of London Corporation has published design standards giving advice on access for people with disabilities and setting out the minimum standards it expects to see adopted in the City buildings. These can be obtained from the City's Access Adviser, City Planning Officer and District Surveyor. Further advice on improving access for people with disabilities can be obtained from the City's Access Adviser. Your attention is drawn to the Disability Discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that disabled people are not significantly disadvantaged.

Service providers, etc., should make "reasonable adjustments" to facilitate access to their premises and the City asks all applicants for planning permission to ensure that physical barriers to access premises are minimised in any works carried out.

Page 74

4 The correct street number or number and name must be displayed prominently on the premises in accordance with regulations made under Section 12 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. Names and numbers must be agreed with the Department of the Built Environment prior to their use including use for marketing.

5 The Directorate of the Built Environment must be consulted on the following matters which require specific approval: (a) The need for a projection licence for works involving the construction of any retaining wall, foundation, footing, balcony, cornice, canopy, string course, plinth, window cill, rainwater pipe, oil fuel inlet pipe or box, carriageway entrance, or any other projection beneath, over or into any public way (including any cleaning equipment overhanging any public footway or carriageway). You are advised that highway projection licenses do not authorise the licensee to trespass on someone else's land. In the case of projections extending above, into or below land not owned by the developer permission will also be required from the land owner. The City Surveyor must be consulted if the City of London Corporation is the land owner. In such cases please also contact the Corporate Property Officer, City Surveyor's Department. (b) Permanent Highway Stopping-Up Orders, dedication of land for highway purposes, declaration, diversion and stopping up of City and Riverside Walkways. (c) Hoardings, scaffolding and their respective licences, temporary road closures and any other activity on the public highway in connection with the proposed building works. In this regard the City of London Corporation operates the Considerate Contractors Scheme. (d) The incorporation of street lighting and/or walkway lighting into the new development. Section 53 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1900 allows the City to affix to the exterior of any building fronting any street within the City brackets, wires, pipes and apparatus as may be necessary or convenient for the public lighting of streets within the City. (e) Connections to the local sewerage and surface water system. (f) Carriageway crossovers. (g) Means of escape and constructional details under the Building Regulations and London Building Acts (District Surveyor). (h) The display of any advertisement material on the premises which may be subject to the City of London Corporation's Byelaws.

6 The enabling of archaeological work to meet the requirements of conditions 10, 11 and 12 is the responsibility of the developer and should be regarded as an integral part of the development programme in accordance with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy. This would include on site facilities, funding, fieldwork, post excavation analysis and reporting and publication of the work in accordance with recognised guidelines and codes of practice. This is to

Page 75 ensure adequate "preservation by record" of the archaeological resource affected by the proposed development.

7 The Markets and Consumer Protection Department (Environmental Health Team) must be consulted on the following matters: (a) Approval for the installation of furnaces to buildings and the height of any chimneys. If the requirements under the legislation require any structures in excess of those shown on drawings for which planning permission has already been granted, further planning approval will also be required. (b) Installation of engine generators using fuel oil. (c) The control of noise and other potential nuisances arising from the demolition and construction works on this site and compliance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007; the Environmental Health Team should be informed of the name and address of the project manager and/or main contractor as soon as they are appointed. (d) Alterations to the drainage and sanitary arrangements. (e) The requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the other relevant statutory enactments (including the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963); in particular: - the identification, encapsulation and removal of asbestos in accordance with a planned programme; - provision for window cleaning (internal and external) to be carried out safely. (f) The use of premises for the storage, handling, preparation or sale of food. (g) Use of the premises for public entertainment. (h) Approvals relating to the storage and collection of wastes.

(i) Limitations which may be imposed on hours of work, noise and other environmental disturbance. (j) The control of noise from plant and equipment; (k) Methods of odour control.

8 The Director of Markets and Consumer Protection (Environmental Health Team) advises that:

Noise and Dust

(a) The construction/project management company concerned with the development must contact the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection and provide a working document detailing steps they propose to take to minimise noise and air pollution for the duration of the works at least 28 days prior to commencement of the work. Restrictions on working hours will normally be enforced following discussions with relevant parties to establish hours of work for noisy operations.

Page 76 (b) Demolition and construction work shall be carried out in accordance with the City of London Code of Practice for Deconstruction and Construction. The code details good site practice so as to minimise disturbance to nearby residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust etc. The code can be accessed through the City of London internet site, www.cityoflondon.gov.uk, via the a-z index under Pollution Control-City in the section referring to noise, and is also available from the Markets and Consumer Protection Department.

(c) Failure to notify the Markets and Consumer Protection Department of the start of the works or to provide the working documents will result in the service of a notice under section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act l974 (which will dictate the permitted hours of work including noisy operations) and under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act l990 relating to the control of dust and other air borne particles. The restrictions on working hours will normally be enforced following discussions with relevant parties to establish hours of work for noisy operations.

Air Quality

(d) Compliance with the Clean Air Act 1993

Any furnace burning liquid or gaseous matter at a rate of 366.4 kilowatts or more, and any furnace burning pulverised fuel or any solid matter at a rate of more than 45.4 kilograms or more an hour, requires chimney height approval. Use of such a furnace without chimney height approval is an offence. The calculated chimney height can conflict with requirements of planning control and further mitigation measures may need to be taken to allow installation of the plant.

Boilers and CHP plant

(e) The City is an Air Quality Management Area with high levels of nitrogen dioxide. All gas boilers should therefore meet a dry NOx emission rate of <40mg/kWh in accordance with the City of London Air Quality Strategy 2011.

(f) All gas Combined Heat and Power plant should be low NOX technology as detailed in the City of London Guidance for controlling emissions from CHP plant and in accordance with the City of London Air Quality Strategy 2011.

(g) When considering how to achieve, or work towards the achievement of, the renewable energy targets, the Markets and Consumer Protection Department would prefer developers not to consider installing a biomass burner as the City is an Air Quality Management Area for fine particles and nitrogen dioxide. Research indicates that the widespread use of these appliances has the potential to increase particulate levels in London to an unacceptable level. Until

Page 77 the Markets and Consumer Protection Department is satisfied that these appliances can be installed without causing a detriment to the local air quality they are discouraging their use. Biomass CHP may be acceptable providing sufficient abatement is fitted to the plant to reduce emissions to air.

(h) Developers are encouraged to install non-combustion renewable technology to work towards energy security and carbon reduction targets in preference to combustion based technology.

Standby Generators

(i) Advice on a range of measures to achieve the best environmental option on the control of pollution from standby generators can be obtained from the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection.

(j) There is a potential for standby generators to give out dark smoke on start up and to cause noise nuisance. Guidance is available from the Department of Markets and Consumer Protection on measures to avoid this.

Cooling Towers

(k) Wet cooling towers are recommended rather than dry systems due to the energy efficiency of wet systems.

Food Hygiene and Safety

(l) Further information should be provided regarding the internal layout of the proposed food/catering units showing proposals for staff/customer toilet facilities, ventilation arrangements and layout of kitchen areas.

(m) If cooking is to be proposed within the food/catering units a satisfactory system of ventilation will be required. This must satisfy the following conditions:

Adequate access to ventilation fans, equipment and ductwork should be provided to permit routine cleaning and maintenance;

The flue should terminate at roof level in a location which will not give rise to nuisance to other occupiers of the building or adjacent buildings. It cannot be assumed that ductwork will be permitted on the exterior of the building;

Additional methods of odour control may also be required. These must be submitted to the Markets and Consumer Protection Department for comment prior to installation;

Page 78 Ventilation systems for extracting and dispersing any emissions and cooking smells to the external air must be discharged at roof level and designed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specification in order to prevent such smells and emissions adversely affecting neighbours.

9 The investigation and risk assessment referred to in condition 2 "Contaminated Land" must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: - human health, - property (existing or proposed) including buildings, open spaces, service lines and pipes, - adjoining land, - groundwaters and surface waters, - ecological systems, - archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This investigation and risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

10 Thames Water advises:

(1) The developer is advised to contact Thames Water Development Services (0845 850 2777) to discuss the details of the piling method statement required by a condition of this planning permission.

(2) Where a developer proposes to discharge groundwater into a public sewer, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing, and site remediation. Groundwater permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water, Risk Management Team by telephoning 020 8507 4890 or by emailing [email protected]. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provision of the Water Industry Act 1991.

Page 79 (3) It is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for surface water drainage to ground, water courses or suitable sewer. It is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate, and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

(4) Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on all catering establishments. We further recommend, in line with best practice for the disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease, the collection of waste oil by a contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio diesel. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses. Further information on the above is available in a leaflet 'Best Management Practices for Catering Establishments' which can be requested by telephoning 01923 898 188.

(5) The developer should incorporate with their proposals, protection to the property by installing for example, a non-return valve or other suitable device to avoid the risk of backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions.

(6) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water's pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

(7) A Trade Effluent Consent will be required for any Effluent discharge other than a 'Domestic Discharge'. Any discharge without this consent is illegal and may result in prosecution. (Domestic usage for example includes - toilets, showers, washbasins, baths and canteens). Typical Trade Effluent processes include: - Laundrette/Laundry, PCB manufacture, photographic/printing, food preparation, abattoir, farm wastes, vehicle washing, metal plating/finishing, cattle market wash down, chemical manufacture, treated cooling water and any other process which produces contaminated water. Pre-treatment, separate metering, sampling access etc, may be required before the Company can give its consent. Applications should be made to Waste Water Quality, Crossness STW, Belvedere Road, Abbeywood, London. SE2 9AQ. Telephone: 020 3577 9200.

Page 80 (8) Thames Water would recommend that petrol/oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol/oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.

(9) The development covers a large area, currently served by combined sewers. Impact will depend upon proposed points of connection. Overall flows to combined sewers should not exceed historic flows and this may often be achievable by agreed surface water retention.

11 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.

12 The Crime Prevention Design Advisor for the City of London Police should be consulted with regard to guidance on all aspects of security, means of crime prevention in new development and on current crime trends.

13 You are advised that the detailed designed and in particular the proposed fluted glass facade as shown on the approved drawings is considered to be an important element of the success of the overall building design. As such, any proposed variation either in detailed design or in the use of materials that is not wholly within the spirit of those drawings is likely to dilute the design quality of the building and is likely to be resisted by the City of London as local planning authority.

Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 82 Agenda Item 7b

Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 From: Peter Schmitt Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM Subject: Maggie's Centre Revisions, St Bartholomew's Hospital (ref 14/01281/LBC and 14/01283/FULL) To: "Delves, Gemma"

Dear Gemma,

Ref. Application under Section 73 to make modifications to the Maggie's Centre granted Approval on 17th July 2014, including internal modifications to lift, stair and toilets and external modifications to extend the Centre by 400mm. My email of Objection dated 30 January 2015 Your email of reply dated 6 February 2015 Your reference: 14/01281/LBC and 14/01283/FULL

Statement of Objection

I am writing to reiterate my objection to the design by Steven Holl, which has been resubmitted for the third time but in the identical fluorescent glass envelope, which remains an aesthetic disgrace to the Smithfield Conservation Area and causes substantial harm to the neighbouring Listed buildings, in particular, James Gibbs's Grade-1 Listed North Wing.

I have looked at the contents of your email of 6 February 2015 and understand from the attached Joint Media Statement, dated 4 December 2014, that agreement has been reached to incorporate the functional essentials of lift, stair and toilets within the Maggie's Centre at the east end of the North Wing, which will enable the Great Hall 'to survive and flourish', according to the joint wording. The amended plans bear this out, having to increase the width of the new extension by 400mm. Laura Leeof Maggie's is quoted as saying "I am absolutely delighted that we have found a solution that works for all parties..." She it was who failed to grasp the intrusion of Holl's design from the outset.

But does it really work? And at what cost? In truth, the 'joint' solution is only half a solution. One would never fathom by looking at Holl's elevations that there had been any functional changes inside. Holl's appendage, even larger now, is still faced in milky glass, with illuminated coloured panels, more plausible in or Circus. It is his glass extension replicated from the Glasgow School of Art by Mackintosh parachuted into the harmonious Neo-Palladian architecture in Portland stone in this Conservation Area, of which Gibbs's North Wing is the centrepiece, overwhelming its classical proportions and beauty. Apart from internal adjustments of layout, it is no different in substance, design or location from the previous two applications.

The Georgian Group reiterated its objection then and now. I quote the following from their letter to you dated 1 July 2014: "The Group maintains that the proposed Maggie's centre will be damaging to the setting of the Grade I Listed hospital. The proposed building is clearly not designed to be subservient to the Listed building, as required in planning policy terms, and further unbalances Gibbs's carefully designed, symmetrical facade. The PPS5 Planning Practice Guide, which remains a material consideration in the absence of new guidance, states: "The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, including new development in Conservation Areas, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, alignment and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original asset of its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset's significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate." (Para.178)

Page1 123 In design terms, I would ask the Planning Committee to grasp the nettle and and steer away from the vainglorious excess of 'signature' architecture. Use the demolition of the 1960s Finance Block to begin the process of making the 1730-32 North Wing freestanding, as it was designed to be by James Gibbs, gracing one of the finest Georgian Squares in London. Gibbs's detached blocks surrounding the Fountain Square were modelled on his Fellows Building at King's College, Cambridge, which Simon Bradley dubs in his just published The Buildings of England: Cambridgeshire, "by some distance the greatest collegiate building of 18th-century Cambridge."

The understated Hopkins scheme (13/01227/FULL and 13/01228/LBC) ticks all the boxes. It was unanimously Approved by your Committee on 29 April 2014. Its service bustles re-establish a clear building hierarchy to the north of the site - with Gibbs's elegant North Wing at the top of the hierarchy, as an elegant standalone block.

Planning decisions, as planning policy, should be conducted 'as if beauty matters' to quote Oliver Letwin, shadow environment secretary in 2005. The potential aesthetic damage to the nation's heritage is substantial. It will be irreversible. All in the name of Maggie's care and an American trophy architect, who comes from a wholly different culture. But a Macmillan cancer care centre is within spitting distance, housed in Gibbs's West Block, doing precisely the same cancer care counselling, and with clinical care to boot - but quietly performing a respected service without drawing attention to itself, as its reputation goes before it. Its own understated presence acts in itself as a support for cancer patients and their families.

There is a failure of good manners here and traditional architectural courtesy, where the best of modern design has its place, but not when it insults an acknowledged mastery of Georgian perfection in this garish, incongruous, and overweening parvenu, thrusting its presence into the calm and gracious conceit of Gibbs's masterpiece, without rhyme or reason beyond self indulgence. It is the wrong building in the wrong place. There is still time for the Planning Committee to be true to its function as an aesthetic arbiter on a site of historic value to the nation. And I appeal to Committee Members as individual voices of conscience and discernment to refuse this application, which remains in visual terms the same gross error of design and siting that it has been from its inception.

Best wishes, Peter Schmitt M-Arch, BA, FAAR, RIBA Chartered Architect Member of Archives Committee, Barts Health NHS Trust address: 12 Lydon Road, London SW4 0HW

Page2 124 Agenda Item 7a

Committee: Date:

Planning and Transportation 17 July 2014

Subject: North Wing St Bartholomew's Hospital West Smithfield London Demolition of the existing 1960's extension (638sq.m) to the building and the erection of a replacement three storey building for use as a cancer care facility (Class D1, 544sq.m) with ancillary roof terrace and external landscaping.

Ward: Farringdon Without Public For Decision

Registered No: 14/00319/FULL Registered on: 3 April 2014

Conservation Area: Smithfield Listed Building: Grade I

Summary

The application site is located within St Bartholomew's Hospital. The proposal relates to the former Finance Building (638sq.m GEA) a 1960s building which adjoins the eastern end of the grade I listed North Block. The proposal is for a Maggie's Centre. The current applications for listed building consent and planning permission seek to address the concerns raised by Members to the Maggie's scheme presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the 4th June 2013. Revisions have been made to the design and further visuals and details of the external facing material have been provided. A landscaping strategy has been developed for the site. The Maggie's scheme has been submitted alongside separate applications for works to improve the toilet facilities, access and fire escape arrangements in the North Block. These alterations enable the Bart's Health NHS Trust to secure the long-term future of the grade I listed building. To date some 385 letters of support and 57 letters of objection have been received to the scheme. The objections mainly raise concern that the Maggie's scheme would threaten the future of the North Block and that its design would be unsympathetic to the appearance of the North Block. The letters of support note that the design of the building is appropriate, there are no other suitable sites for the Centre, the proposal would meet the Trust's needs in terms of the provision of cancer care facilities and the scheme would not affect the future of the North Block. The Finance Building is of little architectural merit. The contemporary architectural approach to the design of the Maggie's Centre would provide a distinctive building in its own right while enabling the North Block to retain its prominence. Any perceived harm to the significance of the North Block, the Smithfield Conservation Area or the setting of the East Block through the addition of a replacement extension would be less than substantial, and would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal including the provision of a new cancer care facility and the revealing of

Page 53125 architectural features of the North Block. The Bart's Health NHS Trust has confirmed that they are committed to securing the future of the North Block and they consider that the application site is the only suitable location for the Maggie's Centre within the hospital complex.

Recommendation

That planning permission be granted for the proposal in accordance with the attached schedule.

Page 54126

Page 55127 Page 56128 Site 1. The application site is located within the St Bartholomew’s Hospital complex. The proposal relates to the former Finance Building (638sq.m GEA) which adjoins the eastern end of the grade I listed North Block. 2. The Finance Building was designed by Adams, Holden and Person Architects in the 1960s to accommodate the hospital’s accounts department and a bank. It is faced in yellow stock brick and white render and has a basement, ground, 1st and 2nd floor. The building is ‘neo- Georgian’ in style and is grade I listed by virtue of association with the North Block. The building currently accommodates ancillary hospital office accommodation and toilet facilities for use in association with the North Block. 3. The North Block of 1732 comprises one of the four principal hospital buildings designed by James Gibb between 1732 and 1768. It was designed for administrative and ceremonial functions associated with the hospital. The interior is of great importance and includes the Great Hall and Staircase Hall with its Hogarth paintings. The North Block currently accommodates the hospital’s museum and archives and a limited number of functions. 4. The site is in close proximity to a number of other listed buildings. The Kenton and Lucas building to the north east is grade II listed, the Church of St Bartholomew-the-Less and the Screen Wall and Colonnade to the north west are grade II* listed, the Gatehouse to the north west is grade I listed, the East Block to the south east is grade I listed, the West Block to the south west is grade I listed, and three courtyard lamps and the central fountain are each grade II listed. Together the North, East and West Blocks, along with the 1930s Neo-Georgian George V Building to the south, form one of the most significant architectural ensembles in London. The site is within the Smithfield Conservation Area.

Relevant Planning History 5. In 2013 applications for planning permission (ref. 13/00111/FULL), listed building consent (ref. 13/00112/LBC) and conservation area consent (ref. 13/00113/CAC) were considered for a Maggie’s Centre on the same site. At the 4th June 2013 Planning and Transportation Committee Members resolved to refuse the applications. Concerns were raised over the following aspects of the proposal:  The lack of detail on the landscaping associated with the Maggie’s  The impact of the design on the North Block  The impact of the Maggie’s Centre on the future use of the North Block 6. The applications were withdrawn by the applicant prior to the matter being brought back to committee to agree the reasons for refusal. 7. On the 29th April 2014 Members granted planning permission and listed building consent for an alternative scheme for the North Block and the Finance Building. The works by Hopkins Architects, formed part of a

Page 57129 scheme designed to improve the functioning and setting of the North Block. The proposal included the demolition of the Pathology Block and Finance Building. New extensions (‘bustles’) were proposed at the east and west ends of the North Block to improve access arrangements along with ramps to the entrances and associated landscaping.

Proposal 8. Planning permission and listed building consent are sought for a revision to the 2013 Maggie’s proposal by Stephen Holl which seeks to address the concerns raised by Members at the 4th June 2013 Planning and Transportation Committee. 9. The siting of the centre has been revised. It would be set back a further 500 mm from the North Block square frontage in order to better reveal the significance of the grade I listed building. More detailed visuals and a sample of the external facing material have been submitted, with the aim of better illustrating the centre and its relationship with the North Block. It would comprise a three storey addition with curved glazed facades that incorporate inset coloured glass panels. 10. The applicant has commissioned landscape architect Christopher Bradley-Hole to develop a landscaping strategy for the site that is sensitive to the Church and the historic site context. It comprises two reflecting pools, a planted screen, new paving and new planting. 11. Internally the Maggie’s Centre would be self-contained with no linkage to the North Block (in the previous proposal the toilets for the North Block were in the basement of the Maggie’s Centre). 12. Donald Insall Associates have submitted separate applications for listed building consent (14/00279/FULL) and planning permission (14/00278/LBC) for works to contribute towards securing the long term future of the North Block. These include:  Improving the disabled access into the North Block and up to the Great Hall;  Improving the fire escape arrangements; and  Providing new toilets in the basement of the building. 13. This report deals with the applications for planning permission (ref. 14/00319/FULL) and listed building consent (ref. 14/00320/LBC) and the Insall scheme is separately before you.

Consultations 14. The views of other City of London departments have been taken into account in the preparation of this development scheme and some detailed matters remain to be dealt with by condition. 15. The applications have been publicised on site and in the press. To date some 443 letters of representation have been received: 385 letters of support, 57 letters of objection and one letter neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal.

Page 58130 16. The matters raised in the letters of objection can be summarised as follows:  The Maggie’s Centre would prevent the Hopkins scheme from being implemented which would threaten the future of the North Block and prevent it from being restored. There are other suitable locations for the Maggie’s Centre on the hospital site.  The building should not be attached to the North Block as it would detract from its symmetry.  A more sensitively designed building is needed that would be more in keeping with the surroundings.  If cancer care facilities move to UCLH the Maggie’s concept would need reconsideration. 17. The content of the letters of support can be summarised as follows:  The innovative and uplifting design of the centre would complement the Great Hall and respect the heritage context. The scheme would add a modern dimension to the environment. The Finance Building is of little merit.  There are no other suitable sites for the Centre. Historical maps of the area show that buildings have been attached to the North Block for a long time.  The scheme would not affect the future of the Great Hall.  The proposal is consistent with the Trust’s need to care for patients and the Centre would be an asset to the site. St Bartholomew’s is a working hospital. A balance needs to be struck between heritage considerations and the needs of patients.  Through the demolition of the pathology link building the Hopkins scheme showed no consideration for the practicalities of the continued health use of the Trust’s buildings in order to create an artificial setting for the North Block. 18. The neutral letter of representation suggested that the hospital needs to employ more clinical nurse specialists and welfare advisors. This would be the most effective way of ensuring that patients get what they need. It is not necessary to have a Maggie’s Centre and Macmillan Cancer Information Centre on the hospital site. Both charities have a similar remit. 19. English Heritage raises no objection to the proposal. They note that the Finance Building is of little architectural merit and its loss would be acceptable. They consider that while the contemporary design of the proposal contrasts with the classical design of the North Block, the new building is a piece of high quality design in its own right. Any perceived harm would be less than substantial and outweighed by the public benefit that a new cancer care facility would provide and through the revealing of important architectural elements of the North Block such as the quoins.

Page 59131 20. The City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee maintains their objection to the proposal. They raise no objection to the loss of the Finance Building but consider that the proposed replacement building is inappropriate for such an important listed building and the adjacent square. Policies 21. The development plan consists of the London Plan, the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the Core strategy. The London Plan, UDP and Core Strategy policies that are most relevant to the consideration of this case are set out in Appendix A to this report. 22. The draft Local Plan was published in December 2013 and is expected to be adopted in late 2014 or early 2015. Although it does not carry the full weight of an adopted plan, it is considered that the plan should carry significant weight as it is at the final stage of pre-submission consultation, prior to formal consideration at public examination. In accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Regulations, the draft Plan has been considered by the Court of Common Council as sound planning policy for submission to the Secretary of State. 23. Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Considerations 24. 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, to local finance considerations so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (Section70 (2) 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); In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. (S66 (1) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) 25. When considering the applications special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area (S72 (1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990). 26. In considering whether to grant listed building consent the City shall 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 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) act 1990.

Page 60132 27. Chapter 12 of the NPPF sets out key policy considerations for applications relating to designated and non-designated heritage assets. Other relevant guidance is provided by English Heritage including the documents Conservation Principles, and The Setting of Heritage Assets. Building in Context (EH/CABE) and the PPS5 Practice Guide in respect of the setting of heritage assets. 28. In respect of sustainable development the NPPF states at paragraph 14 that ‘at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking… for decision taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay..’ 29. Under Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, the City Corporation must have due regard to the need to: a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 30. In considering the planning application before you, account has to be taken of the statutory and policy framework, the documentation accompanying the application, and the views of both statutory and non- statutory consultees. 31. It is necessary to assess all of the policies and proposals in the Development Plan and to come to a view as to whether in the light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it. 32. The principal issues in considering this planning application are:  The extent to which the proposals comply with the relevant policies of the London Plan, Core Strategy and saved policies of the UDP.  The extent to which the proposals comply with Government policy advice (NPPF).  The impact of the proposal on the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets as well as the setting of listed buildings surrounding the site. This includes consideration as to the impact of the proposal on the future of the North Block.  The appropriateness of the design and massing of the Maggie’s Centre in the context of the area.  The use of hospital (class C3) floorspace for a Maggie’s Centre. 33. The principal issues in considering the listed building consent are:  Whether the demolition of the Finance Building is acceptable.

Page 61133  Whether the proposed Maggie’s Centre would preserve the building, its settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Bart’s Health NHS Trust’s Position on the Application and the Future of the North Block 34. The proposed location of the Maggie’s Centre has generated objections. Concern has been raised that it would prevent the approved Hopkins scheme from being implemented which would prejudice the future use of the North Block. The objections note that alternative sites should be considered. It has been questioned whether the Centre is needed as there is already a Macmillan cancer support facility on the St Bartholomew’s Hospital site and that cancer facilities may be moved to University College Hospital in the future. 35. The Bart’s Health NHS Trust has responded to these points. They advise that careful consideration has been given to the location of the Maggie’s centre and that there are no suitable alternative sites within the Trust’s estates master plan. The Trust has advised that consideration has been given to siting the Maggie’s in the following locations:  Site of the Outpatients department – This would be unsuitable as it would be above the new subterranean energy centre to be built in 2016 as part of the PFI scheme. Clear access is needed to this area for maintenance purposes.  Site of the waste storage area adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth II building – This was discounted as the area is required to service waste management for the entire hospital site.  The site suggested in the Hopkins scheme – This was considered unsuitable as it would be above major infrastructure services. The cost and risk of re-routing services would be unacceptable. The disabled access to the Kenton and Lucas Block would need to be removed in order to accommodate the centre in this location which would be unacceptable. 36. The Trust advises that they recognise that the North Block is a significant building and they wish to secure its long term future. In the long term they envisage that it would be restored and would form part of a heritage quarter along with the Gatehouse and the Church of St Bartholomew The Less. This vision would be realised through the establishment of a North Wing Heritage Trust responsible for the long term future of the North Block. The Donald Insall Associates scheme represents a first step in realising this vision. 37. The Trust has confirmed that the Vicky Clement-Jones Macmillan Cancer Information Centre and Maggie’s Centre would serve two different but complimentary purposes. The Macmillan Centre offers advice, information and support to people affected by cancer. It is open for two hours in the morning and two and a half hours in the afternoon. Experts and trained volunteers are able to answer questions and visitors can access booklets, leaflets and other sources of information.

Page 62134 38. The Maggie’s charity offers a programme of free practical, emotional and social support within the grounds of NHS cancer hospitals. The centres provide support for people with cancer, their family and their friends. Services are delivered by qualified professionals away from the clinical environment of the hospital between 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays, with extended evening and weekend courses. The centres offer courses on wellbeing and run courses in conjunction with other charitable organisations such as the Anthony Nolan Trust and Prostate Cancer UK. 39. The Trust has confirmed that they are committed to providing world class cancer services from the St Bartholomew’s Hospital site in the future. This is a priority of the Trust’s clinical strategy. The PFI development is one of the largest hospital construction projects in Europe and has delivered a state of the art cancer care facility. The Maggie’s Centre would assist in providing cancer services. As part of a programme to consolidate specialist surgery, to improve patient outcomes, there are proposals that would mean that around 350 cancer specialist operations a year would in the future be performed at St Bartholomew’s. This is less than 1% of the 28,000 episodes of cancer care seen by the Trust each year and those 350 patients would still have their remaining care on the St Bartholomew’s Hospital site. The Demolition of the Finance Building 40. The Finance Building is only in partial use currently for ancillary office space and toilet facilities for the North Block. The proposal would result in the loss of 638 sq.m of hospital (Class C2) floorspace. This loss is accepted on the basis that it would be replaced by a new healthcare facility (Class D1) that would complement the surrounding hospital uses. The proposal would accord with policy CS22 of the Core Strategy which seeks to support the continued presence and improvement of St Bartholomew’s Hospital and seeks to provide adequate health care facilities and services for City residents and workers. 41. The toilets would be replaced by new toilets in the basement of the North Block. These works form part of the listed building consent application submitted by Donald Insall (ref. 14.00289/LBC). A condition is recommended requiring details and implementation of the new toilet facilities. 42. The Finance Building represents an unsympathetic addition to the North Block as it cuts across and conceals decorative stonework on the east elevation. The low floor to ceiling heights and reduced scale and proportions give the building a squat appearance. Its demolition is considered to be acceptable. Design and Heritage Considerations 43. Paragraph 129 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including the setting of any asset). The assessment of significance should be taken into account when considering the impact of a proposal.

Page 63135 44. The designated heritage assets of relevance in the consideration of this case are:  The North Block – grade I listed  The Smithfield Conservation Area 45. As well as the setting of:  The East Block – grade I listed  The West Block – grade I listed  The Hospital Gatehouse – grade I listed  The Church of St Bartholomew the Less – grade II* listed  The Screen Wall and Colonnade – grade II* listed  The Kenton and Lucas Building – grade II listed  Three lamp standards – grade II listed  Courtyard fountain – grade II listed  The Medical School – grade II listed 46. The Pathology Block and the four timber courtyard shelters are non- designated heritage assets of relevance to the consideration of the proposal. 47. The significance of each asset has been assessed in accordance with English Heritage’s methodology for assessing “significance” as set out in ‘Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment”. 48. The assets have historical, evidential and communal value by virtue of their relationship with the hospital complex. 49. The North Block is highly significant as it is the principal building on one of London’s oldest operational hospitals. It was designed by a leading 18th century architect. Within the building the Staircase Hall has two notable canvases by Hogarth painted in 1735–7 to represent the Good Samaritan and Pool of Bethseda. 50. The North Block’s relationship with the East Block, West Block and the later King George V Block is of significance. Gibb sited the four principal blocks separately to avoid the spread of infection and fire. The buildings are read as a set piece. 51. The Smithfield Conservation Area is significant for its concentration of historic buildings and infrastructure relating to three long-established institutions: the former Priory of St Bartholomew the Great; St Bartholomew’s Hospital and the meat markets. 52. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that “…great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of

Page 64136 the heritage asset or development within its setting…any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” 53. Where a proposal would result in harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, it should be identified whether the harm is substantial or less than substantial. If the harm is substantial the proposed development should be considered in respect of paragraph 133 of the NPPF and if the harm is less than substantial the development should be considered in respect of paragraph 134 of the NPPF. 54. The proposal would result in some harm to the significance of the North Block and the setting of the East Block. It is considered that the harm should be treated as less than substantial and therefore the approach set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF should be applied to this case. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that any less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset should be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. 55. In relation to the listed building consent, when weighing any harm to designated heritage assets against the public benefits of the proposals, great weight should be afforded to the desirability of preserving the listed building and the setting of listed buildings or any special features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Assessment of the Impact of the Proposal on the Significance of the Designated Heritage Assets The North Block 56. The demolition of the Finance building would expose the quoins, blind windows and architraves of the North Block’s east elevation. A detailed study of this elevation would be required by condition, prior to the construction of the Maggie’s Centre. 57. The Maggie’s Centre has been designed to ensure that features of architectural significance on the North Block remain exposed. This approach would accord with paragraph 137 of the NPPF which states that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development to enhance or better reveal the significance of heritage assets. 58. The Centre would occupy a smaller footprint than the existing Finance Building. Its front and rear facades would be set back to expose the quoin detailing on the north and south east facing corners of the North Block. Blind windows would be exposed within the Maggie’s Centre at first and second floor level. This is with the exception of one blind window at second floor level which would be obscured by the roof of the new building. Details of the junction between the roof and the blind window would be required by condition. The harm to the window is judged to have a less than substantial impact on the significance of the North Block. 59. The setback of the front and rear facades and the varied height of the Maggie’s Centre result in a building that relates satisfactorily to the North

Page 65137 Block. The Centre would appear appropriately subservient to the North Block and the lower level of the roof on the north side of the building would ensure a sympathetic relationship to the listed church, screen wall and Kenton and Lucas Block. The smooth curved facades allow the strong lines and classical detailing of the Gibbs building to maintain their prominence. The greenery to the roof of the Centre would harmonise with the existing and proposed trees and planting around the perimeter of the Church. 60. A contemporary architectural language has informed the design of the building. The Centre would be clad externally in ‘Okalux’ glass, which comprises a low-iron glazing system with a matt sandblasted finish. The white opalescent glass would be arranged in swept horizontal bands, interspersed with coloured panels. The bands of glass provide a subtle horizontal subdivision of the elevations. When viewed obliquely in daylight the glass takes on a matt white colour that would complement and visually blend with the Portland stone of the North Block and surrounding buildings. The fine texture of the glass would diffuse light and give a subtle glow when illuminated. The composition of the proposed glazing would prevent it from appearing as a garish light. 61. The glazing would hang upon a cast concrete lattice core, the silhouette of which would be glimpsed externally. The interior of the Centre would be lined with bamboo and have a feature curved staircase. From the hospital courtyard this would be glimpsed through the clear glazed entrance. 62. The contemporary architectural approach has given rise to objection on the grounds that the proposed centre would not be sympathetic to the North Block or the surrounding historic context and that the demolition of the Finance Building provides the opportunity to restore the original appearance of the North Block. 63. New buildings and extensions have been added to the hospital complex in response to changing clinical requirements over the centuries. The arrangement of the Gibbs buildings has been altered through additions to the east and west ends of the North Block, later buildings to Giltspur Street and the substantial extension of the King George V block. 64. The North Block is already attached to the Finance Block. As such the replacement of this building by the Maggie’s Centre would not result in any greater diminishment of the set piece of the four principal blocks around the courtyard. 65. The proposed Maggie’s Centre is of architectural merit. It would provide a bold addition to the listed building and conservation area when viewed from the Square and site surroundings. The design philosophy is based on the rationale that in order to respect the authenticity of historic architecture, a contrasting new element must be created which does not overwhelm the host building but is a complimentary contrast to it. The proposed Maggie’s Centre would be read as a distinctive building in its own right while enabling the North Block to retain its prominence.

Page 66138 66. Any perceived harm to the significance of the North Block through the addition of a replacement extension and the partial obscuring of a blind window, would be less than substantial. The proposal would not diminish the significance of the North Block. The less than substantial harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal which include the provision of a new cancer care facility with associated landscaping and the revealing of the architectural features of the North Block. 67. A garden for the Centre would be created between the North Block, Kenton and Lucas Block and church. It would comprise predominantly hard landscaping, with porphyry setts and raised stone pools. Greenery would take the form of sculpted evergreen hedges, small pleached trees, and espaliered fruit trees screening the Kenton and Lucas Block disabled ramp. The garden would provide a distinct area for use by the Centre and members of the public, designed to complement the Princess Alice Memorial Garden and enhance the setting of the North Block and surrounding listed buildings. 68. The applicant has confirmed that the landscaping would be carried out on land owned by the Trust. The Trust acknowledges that some of the landscaping is proposed on consecrated land and understands that a faculty would be required from the church in order to carry out these works. 69. Some 52 cycle parking spaces (26 cycle parking stands) outside the Kenton and Lucas Block would need to be relocated in order to accommodate the landscaping. Details of the relocation of the cycles would be required by condition. The Setting of the Surrounding Listed Buildings 70. The proposal principally impacts on the setting of the East Block, The Kenton and Lucas Building and the Church of St Bartholomew the Less. 71. The Maggie’s Centre would be in close proximity to the north western end of the East Block. It would partially diminish the separation between the North Block and the East Block as originally intended by Gibb. The harm to the setting of the East Block is considered to be less than substantial and outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The North Block already has an extension and the resultant harm from the proposal would be no more substantial than the existing situation. It would still be possible to differentiate between the original four hospital blocks and the modern appearance of the Maggie’s Centre. 72. The Kenton and Lucas Block is not related to the square or the layout of the buildings around the square. The block is on the periphery of the hospital grounds and its setting is formed by its already close relationship to the surrounding hospital buildings including the Finance Building, the Anthony Brett catering block and the Church of St Bartholomew the Less. The proposed Maggie’s Centre would not result in any harm to the significance of the block’s setting. 73. The proposed landscaping would impact on the setting of the Church and the Screen Wall and Colonnade. It would enhance the setting of these two designated assets. The proposal would not impact on the

Page 67139 western end of the church, as such views of the Church and its setting from the Gatehouse would be unaffected. 74. The proposed development would be such a distance from the West Block, Hospital Gatehouse, three lamp standards, courtyard fountain and the Medical School so as not to impact on the setting of these listed buildings. The Smithfield Conservation Area 75. The Maggie’s Centre would impact on localised views of the hospital square in terms of the ability to read the North Block as standalone building within Gibbs set piece. The resultant harm to the significance of the Smithfield Conservation Area when considered as a whole would be less than substantial, and outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The significance of the conservation area would not be very much reduced by the proposal. The ability to read Gibbs set piece is currently compromised by additions to the North Block. The Impact of the Proposal on the Setting of the Non-Designated Heritage Assets 76. The proposal would be a sufficient distance from the courtyard shelters and the Pathology Block so as not to impact on the significance of these non-designated heritage assets. Servicing 77. The servicing requirements for the building would be minimal. The Trust has an existing servicing strategy and loading bay facility should large deliveries be required. Maggie’s do not use large scale suppliers. It is anticipated that the majority of deliveries to the Centre would be through staff bringing in supplies. Archaeology 78. The site is in an area of important archaeological potential, located to the north of the Roman and medieval defences in an area of a known Roman cemetery and within the precinct of the 12th century Priory and Hospital of St Bartholomew. There is potential for Roman remains including burials, 19th century burials associated with the church of St Bartholomew the Less and medieval and post medieval building foundations associated with St Bartholomew’s Hospital. An Historic Environment Assessment and addendum of the archaeology of the site and impact of the proposals has been submitted with the application. 79. The proposed development includes a new basement which would be partly within the footprint of the existing basement and with a deeper slab level. The north-west side would meet the North Wing, possibly with a stepped floor to avoid the need for underpinning. Other groundworks include sheet piling to support the basement wall and upper storeys and shallow groundworks for the proposed landscaping. There is potential for archaeological remains to be disturbed by the proposals, including the possible survival of burials associated with the churchyard of St. Bartholomew the Less.

Page 68140 80. Archaeological evaluation is necessary to provide additional information on the character, nature and date of archaeological survival on the site, including the extent of modern disturbance to assess the impact of the proposals, including foundations and to design an appropriate mitigation strategy. The archaeological evaluation should be used to provide additional information to develop the foundations and ground works proposals to minimise excavation and archaeological impact. 81. Conditions are recommended to cover archaeological evaluation, a programme of archaeological work and foundation design. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S.106 Contributions 82. The proposal would not be liable for a CIL contribution as the proposal would result in a reduction in floorspace. Conclusion Planning Permission 83. The proposal should be assessed against the relevant development plan policies. There is a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the North Block and its setting and the features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby listed buildings. Special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Smithfield Conservation Area as a further statutory duty. Considerable importance and weight has been attached to the harm to the North Block and its setting and the features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and to the harm to the Smithfield Conservation Area. It is concluded that other material considerations outweigh such harm. 84. The appearance of the grade I listed North Block has been compromised by the addition of the 1960s and 1970s extensions to its east and west ends. The Finance Building lacks architectural merit and its demolition would be acceptable. 85. The Bart’s Health NHS Trust has indicated that the proposed site is the only suitable location for the Maggie’s Centre. They have confirmed that plans are in place to secure the long term future of the North Block and that St Bartholomew’s Hospital will continue to provide world class cancer services. 86. The hospital complex has been altered over time in response to clinical needs. The proposed Maggie’s Centre would replace an existing extension. Its scale and physical attachment are acceptable in relation to the North Block, the Smithfield Conservation Area and the setting of surrounding listed buildings. The scheme provides the opportunity to reveal and repair lost features of the east facing elevation of the North Block including blind windows and the quoins. The scheme accords with the NPPF. 87. The proposed architectural approach represents a complimentary contrast to the adjoining building. Any harm to the significance of the heritage assets comprising the North Block and the setting of the East

Page 69141 Block arising from the new building and through the obscuring of a blind window would be less than substantial. The less than substantial harm is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of a cancer care facility with associated landscaping and the revealing of currently obscured architectural elements of the North Block. Listed Building Consent 88. Listed building consent is required for the demolition of the Finance Building and the addition of the new Maggie’s Centre to the North Block. The Finance Building represents a later addition to the North Block and lacks architectural merit. Its demolition would be acceptable. 89. The Maggie’s Centre would replace an existing extension. It has been designed to reveal currently obscured architectural elements of the North Block including quoins and blind windows. 90. New toilet facilities would be secured by condition in order to replace those lost through the demolition of the Finance Building. 91. On balance the proposal would not result in substantial harm to the special architectural or historic importance of the North Block and it is recommended that listed building consent is granted.

Page 70142 Background Papers Internal External Maggie’s Centre St Bartholomew’s Hospital Planning Statement March 2014 Maggie’s Centre, St Bartholomew’s Hospital Historic Building Report dated March 2014 Maggie’s Centre, St Bartholomew’s Hospital Historic Environment Assessment dated January 2013 Maggie’s Centre, St Bartholomew’s Hospital Design and Access Statement dated March 2014 Existing drawing numbers: L(00)002 rev. A; L(00)003 Donald Insall Submission Drawings: 202 rev. A; 216 rev. A. Visuals and accompanying statement from Peter Stewart dated 5th February 2014 Addendum to the Historic Environment Assessment dated 01.07.2013 03.04.2014 Letter Trevor Payne, Barts Health NHS Trust 03.04.2014 Letter DP9 13.05.2014 Letter City of London Conservation Area Advisory Committee 14.05.2014 Letter English Heritage 16.05.2014 Letter English Heritage 10.06.2014 Email David Morris, DP9 23.06.2014 Letter Stephen O’Brien 24.06.2014 Email Ian Walker, Barts Health NHS Trust 24.06.2014 Email Barts Health NHS Trust 24.06.2014 Email David Morris, DP9 25.06.2014 Email Barts Health NHS Trust 25.06.2014 Email Ian Walker, Barts Health NHS Trust 25.06.2014 Email David Morris, DP9 30.06.2014 Email David Morris, DP9 Representations: 08.05.2014 Letter Peter Morris, Barts Health NHS Trust 16.05.2014 Email Davud Fell 16.05.2014 Email Sallianne Taylor 16.05.2014 Email Selloua Chakri 16.05.2014 Email Sophia Briggs 16.05.2014 Email Jonathan Seymour 16.05.2014 Email Simon Vannuccini 16.05.2014 Email Richard Durant 18.05.2014 Email Diana Robinson 19.05.2014 Email Marcia Blakenham 19.05.2014 Email Ian Collins 19.05.2014 Email Olivia Gregory (no comments) 19.05.2014 Email Clara Weatherall 19.05.2014 Email Paul Goswell 19.05.2014 Email Matthew Brown 19.05.2014 Email Sally Hands 19.05.2014 Letter Michael Hopkins

Page 71143 19.05.2014 Email Birgit Neu 20.05.2014 Email Heneage Stevenson 20.05.2014 Email Rachel Henley 20.05.2014 Email Anne Oconnor 20.05.2014 Email Ed Morris 20.05.2014 Email Rory Robinson 20.05.2014 Email Emma Parry 20.05.2014 Email Abel Hadden 20.05.2014 Email Caroline Saunders 20.05.2014 Email Joseph Hunter 20.05.2014 Email Miranda Phillips 20.05.2014 Email Emily Somers 20.05.2014 Email Andrew Preston 20.05.2014 Email Chris Clark 20.05.2014 Email Clare Clark 20.05.2014 Email Simon Maynard 21.05.2014 Email Paola Nicolaides 21.05.2014 Email Lord Rodney Leach of Faiford 21.05.2014 Email Tracy Jones 21.05.2014 Email Claire Twohill 21.05.2014 Email Richard Hillier 21.05.2014 Email Diane Sampson 21.05.2014 Email Tom Eeles 21.05.2014 Email Eduardo Beltrao 21.05.2014 Email Katie Wood 21.05.2014 Email Peter Russell 21.05.2014 Email Nicholas Wood 21.05.2014 Email Richard Benson 21.05.2014 Email Thalia Wirth 21.05.2014 Email Lei Thompson 21.05.2014 Email Phoebe Campbell 21.05.2014 Email Jessica Sims 21.05.2014 Email Laura Greene 21.05.2014 Email Natalie Iddles 21.05.2014 Email Eleanor Evans 21.05.2014 Email Alexander Evans 21.05.2014 Email Hannah Barnard 21.05.2014 Email Susannah Pollen (no comments) 21.05.2014 Email Jeanette Marsh 22.05.2014 Email Geraldine Anselme 22.05.2014 Email Piers Blake 22.05.2014 Email Christine Armstrong 22.05.2014 Email Anastasia Robson (no comments) 22.05.2014 Email Omid Mojabi 22.05.2014 Email John Hemming 22.05.2014 Email Anthony Edwards (no comments) 22.05.2014 Email Matthew Smith 22.05.2014 Email Andrea Guy 22.05.2014 Email James Wootton 22.05.2014 Email Alan Eisner

Page 72144 22.05.2014 Email Sarah Pearson 22.05.2014 Email Joyce Larby 22.05.2014 Email Chris Gallagher 22.05.2014 Email Jo West 23.05.2014 Email Vicky Miller 23.05.2014 Email James Hart 23.05.2014 Email Robert Garwood 23.05.2014 Email Wendy Blake 23.05.2014 Email Sian Lloyd 23.05.2014 Email Caroline Dancyger 23.05.2014 Email Kevin Chesters 23.05.2014 Email Lynne Dodson 23.05.2014 Email Marc Vastenavondt (neither supports nor objects) 24.05.2014 Email Kathy Pritchard – Jones 24.05.2014 Email Andrew Dodgshon 24.05.2014 Letter London Cancer 26.05.2014 Email Sara-Faye Golstein 26.05.2014 Email Wilson Kerr 27.05.2014 Email Fiona MacNeill 27.05.2014 Email Richard Lambert 27.05.2014 Email Rebecca Stephenson 27.05.2014 Email Jon Stephenson 27.05.2014 Email Justine Alderwick 27.05.2014 Email Katie Raby 27.05.2014 Letter Michael Harding 27.05.2014 Email Iyn Fuss (no comments) 27.05.2014 Email Edwina Sassoon 28.05.2014 Email Justin Saunders 28.05.2014 Email Robert Leonard 28.05.2014 Email Julian Taylor 28.05.2014 Email Philip Sinitsky 28.05.2014 Email Joyce Daver 28.05.2014 Email Susan Emerton 28.05.2014 Email Michael Withams 28.05.2014 Email Stephen Roberts 28.05.2014 Email Nicolaas Aukes 28.05.2014 Email Temitope Alaka 28.05.2014 Email Anne Roberts 28.05.2014 Email John Roberts 28.05.2014 Email Mary Black 28.05.2014 Email Joanna Buxton 28.05.2014 Email David Docherty 28.05.2014 Email Lynne Richardson 28.05.2014 Email Kelley Marriage 28.05.2014 Email Michael Swash 28.05.2014 Email Jon Ellis 28.05.2014 Email Jane Fior 28.05.2014 Email Catherine Cunningham 28.05.2014 Email Dilys Stinson 28.05.2014 Letter James and Anne Thomas

Page 73145 29.05.2014 Email Beth Hunt 29.05.2014 Email Panos Papas 29.05.2014 Email Fiona Halstead 29.05.2014 Email Adrianne Baskin 29.05.2014 Email Jilly Bowen 29.05.2014 Email Thomas Hamre 29.05.2014 Email Ray Simmonds 29.05.2014 Email Anthony Bedford 29.05.2014 Email Ingrid Smith 30.05.2014 Email Joan Drake 30.05.2014 Email Helen Omoregie 30.05.2014 Email Graham Pitman 30.05.2014 Email Lee-Ann Aldridge 30.05.2014 Email Mark Graver 31.05.2014 Email James Emerton 31.05.2014 Email Edna Reynolds 31/05.2014 Email David Hoffman 01.06.2014 Email Annelyse Allen 01.06.2014 Email Nicole Bellamy 01.06.2014 Email Richard Daver 01.06.2014 Email Julie Daver 01.06.2014 Email Hattie Ellis 02.06.2014 Email Frances Robinson 02.06.2014 Email Mr Kapil 02.06.2014 Email Andrew Attfield 02.06.2014 Email Anna Saltmarsh 02.06.2014 Email Thomas Cresswell 02.06.2014 Email Andrew Cantle 02.06.2014 Email Jane Owen 02.06.2014 Email Nicholas Good 02.06.2014 Email Claire Murrell 02.06.2014 Email Anne Mullins 03.06.2014 Email Amanda Hayler 03.06.2014 Email John Makinson 03.06.2014 Email Liz Bishop 03.06.2014 Email Nicola Wyatt 03.06.2014 Email Debbie Anderson 03.06.2014 Email Christopher Wilton 03.06.2014 Email Scott Fitzgerald 03.06.2014 Email Clare Stevenson 03.06.2014 Email Catsou Roberts 03.06.2014 Email Sally Smith 03.06.2014 Email Georgina Bates 03.06.2014 Email Sharon Crocker 04.06.2014 Email John Bateson 04.06.2014 Email Steve Eames 04.06.2014 Email Martyn Steers 04.06.2014 Email Carys Jones 04.06.2014 Email Sheila Bower 04.06.2014 Email Nicola Sharma

Page 74146 04.06.2014 Email Dori Dana-Haeri 05.06.2014 Email Peter Bryant 05.06.2014 Email Belinda Morrill 05.06.2014 Email Ruth Tait 05.06.2014 Email John O’Neill 05.06.2014 Email Mary Wiggin 05.06.2014 Email Shalin Diwanji 06.06.2014 Email Chris Petty 06.06.2014 Email Helen Williams 06.06.2014 Email Sean Collins 06.06.2014 Email Johnathan Gray 06.06.2014 Email Kate Gregory 06.06.2014 Email Gerry Leonard 07.06.2014 Email Rory Murphy 08.06.2014 Email Sarah Slater 08.06.2014 Email Lenny Moughton 09.06.2014 Letter Julie Morgan 09.06.2014 Email Crispin Walkling-Lea 09.06.2014 Email Jacqueline Wells 09.06.2014 Email Karen Tipples 09.06.2014 Email Rebecca McIntosh 09.06.2014 Email Andy Jones 09.06.2014 Email Nathan Henry Webber 09.06.2014 Email Alastair Wilson 09.06.2014 Email Tracy Shortall 09.06.2014 Email Abdul Mahbob 09.06.2014 Email Carol Bennett 09.06.2014 Email Julie Hatchard 09.06.2014 Email Vicky McArdle 09.06.2014 Email Kanta Bhatia 09.06.2014 Email Fiona Daly 09.06.2014 Email Deborah Sinclair-Day 09.06.2014 Email Chris Flood 10.06.2014 Email Virginia Juvida 10.06.2014 Email Jane Milligan 10.06.2014 Email Ann-Marie Poole 10.06.2014 Email Edward Harcourt 10.06.2014 Email Miel de Botton 10.06.2014 Email Keith Farley 10.06.2014 Email Charlotte Johnson Wahl 10.06.2014 Email Ivor James 10.06.2014 Email Reza Miah 10.06.2014 Email Chris Large 10.06.2014 Email Richard Byers 11.06.2014 Email Eleanor O’Keeffe 11.06.2014 Email Brian Kennedy 11.06.2014 Email Gerald Kaye 11.06.2014 Email Graeme Betts 11.06.2014 Email Clare Jay 11.06.2014 Email Scott Gibson

Page 75147 11.06.2014 Email Donna Roberts 11.06.2014 Email Robert Davies 11.06.2014 Email Stephen Carr 12.06.2014 Email Susie Lea 12.06.2014 Email Hema Maisuria 12.06.2014 Email P Rose 12.06.2014 Email J Goffe 12.06.2014 Email Kate Cooper 12.06.2014 Email Tessa Charlton 12.06.2014 Email Anna Wallace 12.06.2014 Email Helen Porter 12.06.2014 Email Michael George 12.06.2014 Email Justin Grayer 13.06.2014 Email Rachel Lynch 13.06.2014 Email Richard Mayhew 13.06.2014 Email Ruth Sillitoe 13.06.2014 Email Fiona Bradley 13.06.2014 Email Christopher Smith 13.06.2014 Letter R S O Rees 13.06.2014 Letter Aman Dalvi, Tower Hamlets Council 13.06.2014 Letter Matthew Hopkins 13.06.2014 Email Barry Ray 13.06.2014 Email Melissa Ray 14.06.2014 Email Peter Harris 14.06.2014 Email Michael Swash 14.06.2014 Email Paul Kelly 14.06.2014 Email Mathew Archer 14.06.2014 Email Ikran Hassan 15.06.2014 Email Tim Clement-Jones 15.06.2014 Email Merryl Lawrenson 15.06.2014 Letter Inacio Ribeiro 15.06.2014 Email Felicity Pegg 16.06.2014 Email Michael Kellett 16.06.2014 Email Susan Crewe 16.06.2014 Letter Janet Ellis 16.06.2014 Email George Burgess 16.06.2014 Email Sam Guglani 16.06.2014 Email Tom Coupe 16.06.2014 Email Judith Yapp 16.06.2014 Email Maggie Nicol 16.06.2014 Letter J A W Webb 16.06.2014 Letter Lady Rickes 16.06.2014 Email Moira Doherty 16.06.2014 Email Georgina McIlwraith 16.06.2014 Email Amanda Oliver 16.06.2014 Email Stephen Flatt 17.06.2014 Letter Alain de Botton (165 letters of support) 17.06.2014 Email Lucy Williams 17.06.2014 Email Suzanne Clements 17.06.2014 Email Sam Barbic

Page 76148 17.06.2014 Email Mat Scalway 17.06.2014 Email Sarah Gill 17.06.2014 Email Tim Melville-Ross 17.06.2014 Email Robert and Rosalind Englehart 17.06.2014 Letter Ian Walker 17.06.2014 Email Tony Edelsten 18.06.2014 Email Cordelia Galgut 18.06.2014 Email Tom Bates 18.06.2014 Email Janet Butlin 18.06.2014 Letter Rohan McCullagh 18.06.2014 Email Kathleen Condliffe 18.06.2014 Email Jenny Griffiths 18.06.2014 Email Alice O’Hanlon 18.06.2014 Email Charlotte Campbell 18.06.2014 Email Paul Simmons 18.06.2014 Email Norah Reed 18.06.2014 Email D Costello 18.06.2014 Letter Suzanne O’Reilly 18.06.2014 Letter Christopher Hudson 18.06.2014 Letter Rohan McCullough 18.06.2014 Letter Shireen Begum 18.06.2014 Letter Nicola Kane 18.06.2014 Letter Tania Dexter 18.06.2014 Letter Brenda Mallee 18.06.2014 Letter Sarah Maltby 18.06.2014 Letter Fionnvala Schmartl 18.06.2014 Letter Richard Dunn 18.06.2014 Letter Kevin Stewart 18.06.2014 Letter Billy Fawodu 18.06.2014 Letter Lisa Walker 18.06.2014 Letter Barbara Hunte 18.06.2014 Letter Alan Kane 18.06.2014 Letter Jan Olavsson 18.06.2014 Letter Kevin Harrison 18.06.2014 Letter Ronald M. Bezubka 18.06.2014 Letter Siddikesv Rahuman 18.06.2014 Letter Susannah Appleyard 18.06.2014 Letter I. Marmorstein 18.06.2014 Letter Marilyn Kasserer 18.06.2014 Letter John Hall 18.06.2014 Letter Maryan Mahamad 18.06.2014 Letter Jessica Dickie 18.06.2014 Letter Ahmed Izmeth 18.06.2014 Letter Linda Small 18.06.2014 Letter Eamon Scott 18.06.2014 Letter Alison Thompson 18.06.2014 Letter Nikki Young 18.06.2014 Letter Kristina Wilton 18.06.2014 Letter Shamzah Araf 18.06.2014 Letter Maresa Farrell

Page 77149 18.06.2014 Letter Sally Lyons 18.06.2014 Letter Louise Pratt 18.06.2014 Letter Emily Hendon 18.06.2014 Letter Lual Rigby 18.06.2014 Letter Henry John Wray 19.06.2014 Email Amelia Inwood 19.06.2014 Email Paola Domizio 19.06.2014 Email Robin Simon 19.06.2014 Email Claire Meadows 19.06.2014 Letter Agnieszka Debska 20.06.2014 Email Sam Lipworth 20.06.2014 Email Rebecca Ladbury 20.06.2014 Email Tamsin Sargeant 20.06.2014 Letter Charlotte Campbell 20.06.2014 Letter Sam Everington and Jane Milligan, Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group 20.06.2014 Letter William Shand 20.06.2014 Letter Suzanne Clements 20.06.2013 Letter Jennifer A Vivian 21.06.2014 Email Peter Abraham 22.06.2014 Email Margaret Sellwood 23.06.2014 Email Karen Eldridge 23.06.2014 Letter Daniel Worthington 23.06.2014 Letter P T Jennings 23.06.2014 Letter Stewart Grimshaw, The Monument Trust 23.06.2014 Letter Jayne Gould 23.06.2014 Letter Pierre Goad 24.06.2014 Letter B Barbic 24.06.2014 Letter David Sloman, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust 24.06.2014 Letter Sam Laidlaw 24.06.2014 Letter Ron Kerr, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust 24.06.2014 Letter Linzi Roberts-Egan, Waltham Forest Council 24.06.2014 Letter Janet Lowe 24.06.2014 Email Subadhra Palasubramaniam 24.06.2014 Email Judith Potts 24.06.2014 Email Rebecca Hicks 24.06.2014 Email Anne Purvis 24.06.2014 Email Nicholas Wright 24.06.2014 Email Sarah Pearson 24.06.2014 Email Gavin Chambers 24.06.2014 Email Sarah Wenham 24.06.2014 Email Caroline Foottit 24.06.2014 Email Ruth Fowler 24.06.2014 Email Angel Tiebas 24.06.2014 Email Sheryl Smith 24.06.2014 Email Richard Larkin 24.06.2014 Email Natalie Blyth 24.06.2014 Email Neil Hartman 24.06.2014 Email Lisa Steele 25.06.2014 Letter Carole Barbic

Page 78150 25.06.2014 Letter Thomas Hendars 25.06.2014 Letter Rowena Symonds 25.06.2014 Letter Ruth White 25.06.2014 Letter Jamie Ritblat 25.05.2014 Email S Crocker 25.06.2014 Email Julia Erskine-Naylor 25.06.2014 Email Jackie Roe 26.06.2014 Letter Sir Nicholas and Lady Wright 26.06.2014 Letter F.M Lukes 26.06.2014 Letter Ruth M. Coles 27.06.2014 Email Graham Scrivener 27.06.2014 Letter Anne Marie Hughes 27.06.2014 Letter Tessa Abineri 27.06.2014 Letter Vivien Brown 27.06.2014 Letter Julie Morgan 27.06.2014 Letter Bruno Bubna Kasteliz 27.06.2014 Letter Bruno J.C.M. Currie 27.06.2014 Letter Peter Harrison 27.06.2014 Email David Prole 27.06.2014 Email Harriet Lambert 27.06.2014 Email Lesley Thompson 27.06.2014 Email Mark Barrington 27.06.2014 Letter Lawson Muncaster 28.06.2014 Email Jo Mallabar 28.06.2014 Email Matthew Smith 28.06.2014 Email Oscar Mallabar-Smith 29.06.2014 Email Deborah Laidlaw 29.06.2014 Letter Edwin Heathcote 30.06.2014 Letter Graham Cartledge 30.06.2014 Letter I.D. Ansell 30.06.2014 Letter C.E. Cobley 30.06.2014 Letter C.J. Davin 30.06.2014 Letter Alun Jones 30.06.2014 Letter Alan Pert 30.06.2014 Letter Chris Wilkinson 30.06.2014 Letter Daniel Libeskind 30.06.2014 Letter Rosemary Campbell 30.06.2014 Letter Stephen Down 30.06.2014 Letter Richard Rogers 30.06.2014 Letter Ricky Burdett 30.06.2014 Email Aki Olver 30.06.2014 Email Alison Knapp 30.06.2014 Letter Nigel Cayzer 30.06.2014 Email Serena Helps 30.06.2014 Email Geoffrey Curran 30.06.2014 Email Susan Lepp 30.06.2014 Letter G.A. Wickham 30.06.2014 Letter John H. Shepherd 01.07.2014 Letter William Russell 01.07.2014 Letter Lily Jencks

Page 79151 01.07.2014 Email Carole Patey 01.07.2014 Email Gillian Heather Hackett 01.07.2014 Letter Garbers & James 01.07.2014 Letter George Robinson 01.07.2014 Letter Wendy James 01.07.2014 Email Freddy Gray 01.07.2014 Email Grania Loughnan 01.07.2014 Email Freddy Gray 02.07.2014 Letter Dilowar H. Khan 02.07.2014 Letter Glen Toms 02.07.2014 Letter Lord Palumbo 02.07.2014 Letter L.R.I. Baker 02.07.2014 Email Mary Dymond 02.07.2014 Email Sally Shearer 02.07.2014 Email C Jencks 02.07.2014 Email Luisa Alves 02.07.2014 Email Ab Rogers 02.07.2014 Letter Biba Dow 02.07.2014 Email Steve Marshall 02.07.2014 Letter Robin Woodhead 02.07.2014 Letter Sir David & Lady Bell 02.07.2014 Email Rowan Moore 02.07.2014 Email John and Cecilia Dennis 02.07.2014 Email Steve Marshall 03.06.2014 Email Rory Cullinan 03.06.2014 Letter Tim Garnham 03.06.2014 Letter Lesley Rees

Page 80152 Appendix A London Plan Policies The London Plan policies which are most relevant to this application are set out below: Policy 3.17 Health and social care facilities - Provision of high quality health and social care appropriate for a growing and changing population, particularly in areas of under provision or where there are particular needs. 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 e incorporate best practice in resource management and climate change mitigation and adaptation f provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the surrounding streets and open spaces 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 7.19 Development proposals should, wherever possible, make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity.

Page 81153 Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy 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.

CS22 Maximise community facilities

To maximise opportunities for the City's residential and working communities to access suitable health, social and educational facilities and opportunities, while fostering cohesive communities and healthy lifestyles.

ENV6 Design of alterations to buildings

To ensure that all alterations or extensions to an existing building take account of its scale, proportions, architectural character, materials and setting.

UTIL6 Provision for waste collection

To require adequate provision within all developments for the storage, presentation for collection, and removal of waste, unless exceptional circumstances make it impractical; to encourage provision to allow for the separate storage of recyclable waste where appropriate.

Page 82154

SCHEDULE

APPLICATION: 14/00319/FULL

North Wing St Bartholomew's Hospital West Smithfield

Demolition of the existing 1960's extension (638sq.m) to the building and the erection of a replacement three storey building for use as a cancer care facility (Class D1, 544sq.m) with ancillary roof terrace and external landscaping.

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 shall not begin until a scheme for protecting nearby residents and commercial occupiers from noise, dust and other environmental effects 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 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of nearby residents and commercial occupiers in accordance with the following policy of the Core Strategy: CS15.

3 No works shall commence until details of new toilet provision for the North Block has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Provision shall be made for at least seven toilets to include one facility suitable for disabled people. The facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the Maggie's Centre. REASON: To safeguard the future of the North Block in accordance with the following policy of the Core Strategy: CS12.

4 No works except demolition to basement slab level shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be carried out in accordance with a written

Page 83155 scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include all on site work, including details of any temporary works which may have an impact on the archaeology of the site and all off site work such as the analysis, publication and archiving of the results. All works shall be carried out and completed as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to allow an opportunity for investigations to be made in an area where remains of archaeological interest are understood to exist in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: ARC2, ARC3

5 No works except demolition to basement slab level shall take place before details of the foundations and piling configuration including any temporary enabling works, to include a detailed design and method statement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to show the preservation of surviving archaeological remains which are to remain in situ. REASON: To ensure the preservation of archaeological remains following archaeological investigation in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: ARC2, ARC3.

6 Archaeological evaluation shall be carried out in order to compile archaeological records in accordance with a timetable and scheme of such archaeological work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any commencement of archaeological evaluation work. REASON: To ensure that an opportunity is provided for the archaeology of the site to be considered and recorded in accordance with the following policy of the Unitary Development Plan 2002: ARC 1.

7 Before any works thereby affected are begun the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all development pursuant to this permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details: (a) particulars and samples of the materials to be used on all external faces of the building including external ground and upper level surfaces; (b) a full scale mock up panel measuring 5sq m (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City of London) of the new glazed facade including coloured elements and panel jointing / junctions to be viewed on site ; (c) details of windows and doors; (d) details of the junction between the glazed facades of the building and ground level; (e) the treatment of the east facing elevation of the North Block including the blind windows, quoins and uncovered stonework; (f) details of all junctions between the Maggie's Centre and the east facing elevation of the North Block; and (g) details of the entrance canopies.

Page 84156 REASON: To ensure the protection of the special architectural or historic interest of the building in accordance with the following policy of the Core Strategy: CS10, CS12, ENV6.

8 Refuse storage and collection facilities shall: (a) be provided within the curtilage of the site to serve each part of the development in accordance with details which must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing; and (b) thereafter be maintained as approved throughout the life of the building. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory servicing of the building in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy: UTIL 6, CS10, CS17.

9 Prior to the removal of the existing cycle racks on the site details of the proposed arrangement for the parking of 52 bicycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bicycle parking shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure provision is made for cycle parking and that the cycle parking remains ancillary to the use of the building and to assist in reducing demand for public cycle parking in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: TRANS22.

10 Details of the construction, planting irrigation and maintenance regime for the proposed green roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works thereby affected are begun. The development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and maintained as approved for the life of the development unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority. REASON: To assist the environmental sustainability of the development and provide a habitat that will encourage biodiversity in accordance with the following policies of the Core Strategy: CS10, CS15, CS18, CS19.

11 All unbuilt surfaces shall be treated in accordance with a landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any such works are commenced. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details not later than the end of the first planting season following completion of the development. Trees and shrubs which die or are removed, uprooted or destroyed or become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective within 5 years of completion of the development shall be replaced with trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally approved, or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 85157 REASON: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy: ENV 8, ENV 9, CS10, CS15, CS19.

12 Details of the position and size of the green roof, the type of planting and the contribution of the green roof to biodiversity and rainwater attenuation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works thereby affected are begun. The development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details and maintained as approved for the life of the development unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority. REASON: To assist the environmental sustainability of the development and provide a habitat that will encourage biodiversity in accordance with the following policies of the Core Strategy: CS10, CS15, CS18, CS19.

13 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection 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 nearest window or facade of the nearest premises. The measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with B.S. 4142. The background noise level shall be expressed as the lowest LA90 (10 minutes) during which plant is or may be in operation. A report demonstrating compliance with this condition must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the plant hereby approved comes into operation. REASON: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential/commercial occupiers in accordance with the following policies of the Core Strategy: CS15, CS21.

14 The premises shall be used for the purposes of a Maggie's cancer support centre or other medical or health services and for no other purposes (including other purposes in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order (with or without modification). REASON: Having regard to the special circumstances of the case and to ensure that the following policies of the Core Strategy are not prejudiced: CS12; CS22.

15 All work in making good shall match the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to materials, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any condition(s) attached to this permission. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Core Strategy: ENV6, CS10.

Page 86158 16 The works hereby approved are only those specifically indicated on the drawing(s) referred to in conditions to this consent. REASON: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building in accordance with the following policy of the Core Strategy: CS12.

17 The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the following approved drawings and particulars or as approved under conditions of this planning permission: L(00)001; L(01)001 rev. C; L(01)004; L(01)005; L(02)001 rev. C; L(02)002 rev. B; L(02)003 rev. A; L(02)004; L(02)005 rev. D; L(03)001 rev.B; L(03)002 rev.A; L(04)001 rev. C; L(04)002 rev. B; L(04)003 rev. C; 529.D.01; 529.D.02; 529.D.03 rev. A; 529.D.04 rev. A; 529.D.05 rev.A; 529.D.SK.01; 529.D.SK.02;.529.D.SK.03 REASON: To ensure that the development of this site is in compliance with details and particulars which have been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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 Core Strategy/ Unitary Development 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.

Page 87159 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 160 Agenda Item 7c

Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 From: Peter Schmitt Date: Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:57 PM Subject: Maggie's Centre Revisions, St Bartholomew's Hospital (ref 14/01281/LBC and 14/01283/FULL) To: "Delves, Gemma"

Dear Gemma,

Ref. Application under Section 73 to make modifications to the Maggie's Centre granted Approval on 17th July 2014, including internal modifications to lift, stair and toilets and external modifications to extend the Centre by 400mm. My email of Objection dated 30 January 2015 Your email of reply dated 6 February 2015 Your reference: 14/01281/LBC and 14/01283/FULL

Statement of Objection

I am writing to reiterate my objection to the design by Steven Holl, which has been resubmitted for the third time but in the identical fluorescent glass envelope, which remains an aesthetic disgrace to the Smithfield Conservation Area and causes substantial harm to the neighbouring Listed buildings, in particular, James Gibbs's Grade-1 Listed North Wing.

I have looked at the contents of your email of 6 February 2015 and understand from the attached Joint Media Statement, dated 4 December 2014, that agreement has been reached to incorporate the functional essentials of lift, stair and toilets within the Maggie's Centre at the east end of the North Wing, which will enable the Great Hall 'to survive and flourish', according to the joint wording. The amended plans bear this out, having to increase the width of the new extension by 400mm. Laura Leeof Maggie's is quoted as saying "I am absolutely delighted that we have found a solution that works for all parties..." She it was who failed to grasp the intrusion of Holl's design from the outset.

But does it really work? And at what cost? In truth, the 'joint' solution is only half a solution. One would never fathom by looking at Holl's elevations that there had been any functional changes inside. Holl's appendage, even larger now, is still faced in milky glass, with illuminated coloured panels, more plausible in Leicester Square or . It is his glass extension replicated from the Glasgow School of Art by Mackintosh parachuted into the harmonious Neo-Palladian architecture in Portland stone in this Conservation Area, of which Gibbs's North Wing is the centrepiece, overwhelming its classical proportions and beauty. Apart from internal adjustments of layout, it is no different in substance, design or location from the previous two applications.

The Georgian Group reiterated its objection then and now. I quote the following from their letter to you dated 1 July 2014: "The Group maintains that the proposed Maggie's centre will be damaging to the setting of the Grade I Listed hospital. The proposed building is clearly not designed to be subservient to the Listed building, as required in planning policy terms, and further unbalances Gibbs's carefully designed, symmetrical facade. The PPS5 Planning Practice Guide, which remains a material consideration in the absence of new guidance, states: "The main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, including new development in Conservation Areas, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, alignment and treatment of setting. Replicating a particular style may be less important, though there are circumstances when it may be appropriate. It would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original asset of its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting. Assessment of an asset's significance and its relationship to its setting will usually suggest the forms of extension that might be appropriate." (Para.178)

Page1 192 In design terms, I would ask the Planning Committee to grasp the nettle and and steer away from the vainglorious excess of 'signature' architecture. Use the demolition of the 1960s Finance Block to begin the process of making the 1730-32 North Wing freestanding, as it was designed to be by James Gibbs, gracing one of the finest Georgian Squares in London. Gibbs's detached blocks surrounding the Fountain Square were modelled on his Fellows Building at King's College, Cambridge, which Simon Bradley dubs in his just published The Buildings of England: Cambridgeshire, "by some distance the greatest collegiate building of 18th-century Cambridge."

The understated Hopkins scheme (13/01227/FULL and 13/01228/LBC) ticks all the boxes. It was unanimously Approved by your Committee on 29 April 2014. Its service bustles re-establish a clear building hierarchy to the north of the site - with Gibbs's elegant North Wing at the top of the hierarchy, as an elegant standalone block.

Planning decisions, as planning policy, should be conducted 'as if beauty matters' to quote Oliver Letwin, shadow environment secretary in 2005. The potential aesthetic damage to the nation's heritage is substantial. It will be irreversible. All in the name of Maggie's care and an American trophy architect, who comes from a wholly different culture. But a Macmillan cancer care centre is within spitting distance, housed in Gibbs's West Block, doing precisely the same cancer care counselling, and with clinical care to boot - but quietly performing a respected service without drawing attention to itself, as its reputation goes before it. Its own understated presence acts in itself as a support for cancer patients and their families.

There is a failure of good manners here and traditional architectural courtesy, where the best of modern design has its place, but not when it insults an acknowledged mastery of Georgian perfection in this garish, incongruous, and overweening parvenu, thrusting its presence into the calm and gracious conceit of Gibbs's masterpiece, without rhyme or reason beyond self indulgence. It is the wrong building in the wrong place. There is still time for the Planning Committee to be true to its function as an aesthetic arbiter on a site of historic value to the nation. And I appeal to Committee Members as individual voices of conscience and discernment to refuse this application, which remains in visual terms the same gross error of design and siting that it has been from its inception.

Best wishes, Peter Schmitt M-Arch, BA, FAAR, RIBA Chartered Architect Member of Archives Committee, Barts Health NHS Trust address: 12 Lydon Road, London SW4 0HW

Page2 193 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 194 Agenda Item 8a

Committees: Dates: Item no. Planning and Transportation Committee 24/02/2015 Subject: Progress Report Public Barbican Area Strategy Review : Summary of Public and Stakeholder Feedback. Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment Summary This report summarises and presents key conclusions from the public and stakeholder information gathering exercise agreed with members in early 2014 and carried out between July and December 2014.

A review of the 2008 Barbican Area Strategy was approved by this committee in July 2013 and consultants were appointed in October 2013. The information gathering exercise has been inclusive but provides a broad understanding of issues and opportunities in the area. The resulting evidence base is intended to provide a robust foundation for developing the draft Area Strategy.

The information gathering exercise included both stakeholder and public engagement events. Key stakeholders were interviewed initially followed by themed stakeholder workshops in conjunction with guided tours of the area. Public consultation included a dedicated website and online questionnaire, printed questionnaires delivered to each Barbican and Golden Lane residence, public drop in sessions in the and visitor surveys at both the Barbican Centre and Museum of London.

The results from the stakeholder and public information gathering exercises have now been summarised by consultants into an interim feedback summary. Copies have been made available to Members in the reading room. The summary has also been reviewed by officers and key findings are presented in this report for Members’ consideration.

Table 1 – Financial summary: Spend to 13 January 2015 Item description Approved budget (£) Spend (£) Balance (£) Consultants costs 191,439 176,156 15,283 Staff costs 107,639 56,740 50,899 Total 299,078 232,896 66,182

Recommendations: 1. The report is received and findings noted. 2. Members approve the use of five performance objectives as set out in this report in developing the Barbican Area Enhancement Strategy.

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 195 Main Report

1. Reporting July 2014 – January 2015 period

2. Progress to An extensive public and stakeholder engagement process was date developed in consultation with members and residents. The engagement exercise was carried out between July and December 2014. The stakeholder engagement began with nine one to one key stakeholder interviews. The interviews were intended to brief officers and consultants on possible key headline issues. Three guided walks were also held immediate prior to 8 workshops to provide workshop participants with an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the strategy area. Each stakeholder workshop was intended to identify key issues and opportunities from a range of perspectives and affected parties within the area. The workshops covered the following themes: 1) Members 2) Internal departments 3) Strategic transport 4) Barbican/Golden Lane estates 5) Cultural institutions 6) Heritage 7) Business leaders 8) Property developers After the workshops, a stakeholder plenary session was held to brief all workshop participants on the main outcomes and check that the feedback had been interpreted faithfully. The public engagement consisted of a consultation period that lasted 6 weeks during which nine drop in sessions held in the Barbican Centre foyer. Participants were invited by CoL staff to contribute suggestions using printed questionnaires, sketch drawings on plans or enter responses on a laptop using an interactive map. The interactive map and questionnaire were also made available online and printed questionnaires were distributed to every residence on both the Golden and Barbican estates. Late responses were accepted from members of the public informally up until 30th September 2014. A summary of responses received is set out in Table 2. All feedback and comments were recorded in sufficient detail to ensure a level of responsiveness and transparency.

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 196 Table 2 - Summary of response numbers Number Consultation approach responding Interviews (key stakeholder) 29 Stakeholder walking tours 35 Stakeholder workshops (excluding plenary session) 71 Drop in sessions 120 Paper questionnaire 276 On-line questionnaire 235 On-line comments 333 Post cards 25 Direct emails 8 Visitor survey 331 Total 1265

Barbican visitor questionnaire 1583 Museum of London questionnaire 1405 Total 2988 An interim findings report has been provided by the consultants and made available to members in the members’ reading room. The report includes 15 principle findings which cover all the points raised during the consultation process. These were as follows:  A mixed neighbourhood – A variety of uses including housing, schools, leisure and sport centres, cultural institutions, livery companies, offices, shops and churches. A multitude of unusual buildings adjacent to public spaces give them a distinctive character and a level of complexity that is unusual for the City.

 The Barbican’s impenetrable edges – The condition of the estate’s perimeter. Extensive blank facades present an unfriendly arrival experience for visitors and make access to key cultural institutions more difficult for pedestrians.

 Tranquillity and greenery – valued peaceful places, green spaces and planting. The Barbican’s interior green spaces, Thomas More and Speed garden, provide quiet oases away from traffic noise. Therefore any proposals will need to consider any risk of impacts on tranquillity for visitors and residents.

 The Lakeside Terrace – a successful civic space. This space represents a social heart of the and is an important part of the estate’s appeal to many visitors and residents.

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 197

 Unique condition of the high walks. The podium provides vast amounts of open space but much of it is lacking in identity and function – a condition that is highly unusual in the City of London and contributes towards a disorientating experience for some visitors.

 Complicated way finding, poor arrival experience – a confusing environment lacking clear entry points. It was widely acknowledged that way finding through the area is problematic and signage to key destinations unhelpful. A new approach will be needed to address long standing way finding issues.

 Limited and compromised north-south routes through the area. Work by Space Syntax highlighted that a significant proportion of pedestrian movement was around the estate at ground level rather than through the estate at podium level. There may be potential to enhance existing access points into the Barbican estate at ground level.

 Heritage value of the build environment – demonstrating London’s layered history from Roman origins to present day. There is significant potential for future public realm proposals to interpret these layers of history. This would help contribute towards an impression that culture is important to the City.

 World class cultural offer inadequately represented in the public realm. If the City has aspirations for an internationally significant cultural hub, it’s important that the surrounding public realm helps to reinforce an impression that culture is important to the City.

 Inconsistency in condition and upkeep of hard spaces within the estates. Some of the hard spaces within are in poor condition and in need of maintenance or repair. Keeping the public spaces in good condition contributes to perceptions of quality and safety.

 Beech Street – a hostile and polluted pedestrian environment. Beech Street is a primary point of access for many visitors to the Barbican Centre yet provides a poor welcome to the Barbican estate and Barbican Centre.

 A multitude of car parks and subterranean spaces that affect the public realm. The abundance of car parks and associated vehicular entrances results in streets with

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 198 unengaging facades and a setting for cultural institutions that is dominated by vehicle infrastructure. These conditions contribute to an unwelcoming experience for visitors.

 London Wall and Aldersgate Street – a vehicle-centric environment no longer fit for purpose. London Wall and Aldersgate Street are considered hostile pedestrian environments to traverse. There is an opportunity to reconsider how best to use carriageway space that is no longer needed, due to reduced traffic volumes.

 Compromised connections to surrounding areas and neighbourhoods. Pedestrian connections to neighbouring areas are compromised, particularly by London Wall, Aldersgate Street and Beech Street, wide routes design for vehicle priority. This condition impacts on how convenient and safe the estates and key cultural institutions are to access from surrounding neighbourhoods and public transport.

 Rapidly changing surroundings – the impact of Crossrail and other planned development. Crossrail is expected to result in a moderate increase in the number of people using the streets and spaces around the estates. This may have road safety implications and mean a change in where crossings are needed on the surrounding road network and additional pressure at current crossing points.

Officers believe these findings are comprehensive and reflect back a general understanding to those parties and individuals who were consulted. Five objectives have also been developed out of the fifteen themes: 1. Meeting the needs of infrequent visitors. 2. Meeting the needs of residents, regular visitors and workers. 3. Improving the quality of outdoor streets and spaces. Reducing road danger and retaining network resilience. 4. Preserve existing qualities and values of the estates, including the historic environment. 5. Enhance the presence of Cultural Hub. With the approval of members, these objectives will be used to measure the success and performance of individual projects proposed in the draft strategy.

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 199 3. Next Officers will consult with stakeholders and departments to make steps sure findings are fair and accurate. The following milestones have been set out:

Date Milestone

27 February 2015 Draft Area Strategy delivered by consultants

March 2015 Internal review and consultation

14 April 2015 Report to Planning and Transportation for approval to consult

30 April 2015 Report to Policy and Resources Committees for approval to consult

7 May – 7 July 2015 8 week public consultation

July 2015 Analysis of responses, officers working with consultants on final strategy

13 Sept 2015 Report to Planning and Transportation Committee for approval to adopt

24 Sept 2015 Report to Policy and Resources Committees for approval to adopt

15 Oct 2015 Court of Common Council for adoption

In strategic studies of this nature, proposals sometimes identify unresolved tensions between the needs of different stakeholder groups. Once details of projects are known in the draft Barbican Area Strategy, any divergent needs or perspectives will continue to be closely monitored and addressed by CoL staff through individual projects.

Contact

Report Author Steve Miles Email Address [email protected] Telephone Number 0207 332 3132

Version 3 – Jan 2015 Page 200 Agenda Item 8b

Committee(s) Dated:

Planning & Transportation 24 February 2015

Subject: Public Sugar Quay, Lower Thames Street

Affordable Housing contribution from proposed residential development. Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment

Summary

A Section 106 Agreement associated with the planning permission for residential development at Sugar Quay requires the developer to make an affordable housing payment of £15,006,816 in lieu of affordable housing on-site.

Under the Agreement the developer agreed to pay 50% (£7,503,408) as a first instalment and the remainder as a second instalment or to submit an updated viability assessment demonstrating why they are unable to make the full second instalment.

In 2014 the developer submitted an updated viability assessment which concluded that the scheme could not afford to make any second instalment towards the affordable housing payment. Consultants appointed by the City to review the updated viability assessment were of the view that the scheme could afford the full second instalment of £7,503,408.

In view of the City’s consultant’s advice your Committee took the decision that the full amount should be sought and, in accordance with the Section 106 agreement, that the matter should be referred to an Expert for independent advice on the value of the second instalment.

The independent Expert has considered viability information provided by the developer and the City’s consultant, held a hearing with the parties and reported on his findings.

Having taken into account relevant factors the Expert has determined the amount it is viable for the scheme to pay as the second affordable housing payment is £3,699,592. This produces a total affordable housing payment of £11,203,000.

The Expert’s decision is not binding on either party. The developer has accepted the Expert’s findings and agreed to pay the amount he has determined it to be.

Recommendation

Members are recommended to agree that the value of the second instalment of the affordable housing payment should be £3,699,593.

Page 201 Main Report

Background

1. On 22nd March 2013 your Committee resolved to grant planning permission for redevelopment of Sugar Quay with a new building containing 165 residential units with associated residential facilities and 658sq.m of retail / cafe and restaurant (A1-A4) use at ground floor (Application number 12/01104/FULMAJ). 2. The planning permission was issued on 16th September 2013 following receipt of no objection from the Mayor and completion of the Section 106 Agreement. 3. Under the policies of the Core Strategy (the plan in force at the time of the application) the development would provide an off-site affordable housing contribution of £15,006,816. The applicants considered that the development would not support a payment of that amount, whereas the consultants appointed by the City to appraise the financial viability of the scheme considered the scheme could pay the full amount. You agreed that officers continue to negotiate with a view to obtaining either the full policy compliant payment or an initial cash- in-lieu payment of at least 50% of the policy compliant payment, subject to an upwards only review of the viability prior to implementation of the scheme. 4. In making the decision your Committee instructed that any S.106 affordable housing contribution resulting in a final total contribution (following a viability review) of less than the £15,006,816 policy compliant sum be referred back to the Committee for approval. 5. The applicant and City did not agree on the amount to be paid and consequently the Section 106 Agreement included the requirement for an initial payment of £7,503,408 (being 50% of the policy compliant contribution) and an upward only review for the second payment. The Section 106 Agreement requires: a) The developer to submit an updated viability assessment and for this to be reviewed by the City’s consultants if the proposed second payment remained less than £7,503,408; b) Your Committee to decide what you are minded to accept as the second payment, having regard to the updated viability assessment and City’s consultant’s review. 6. In addition it provides for you to agree that the matter be referred to an independent expert if the developer does not agree with your decision. The expert’s conclusions are not binding on either party and the expert’s views would be reported to your Committee for a decision. 7. In 2014 the developer submitted an updated viability assessment. They had reviewed the development economics of the redevelopment, having updated a number of key inputs and relevant information. They advised that there had been increases in the site value, residential values and build costs which had been factored into their revised appraisal. 8. Their conclusion was that the residual profit for the scheme was below the developer’s target rate of return and as such the scheme could not afford to make any additional affordable housing payment.

Page 202 9. The City’s consultants’ reviewed the updated viability assessment and they concluded that the scheme could afford the full amount of the second payment as set out in the S106 agreement. They had assessed the updated financial information for the scheme and varied a number of inputs in light of their research, knowledge and experience in appraising the viability of London Residential schemes. They did not agree with all of the inputs used by the developers and consequently arrived at a different conclusion to the applicant. Of particular note was the City’s consultant’s view that there is significant potential for the flats fronting the river to sell at prices in excess of the pricing put forward by the developer and that the commercial rent and yield was lower than they would anticipate. 10. In view of the difference in the findings your Committee agreed that you should not accept the applicant’s conclusion. You asked for the full amount of the second payment of £7,503,408, providing a full policy compliant contribution of £15,006,816 and that, if the developer did not agree, that the matter be referred to an independent expert. Current Position 11. By common consent, A M Leahy of Bespoke Property Consultants was appointed as the independent expert. He was provided with the cases made by each side and took advice from a firm of experienced selling agents in the City to obtain advice on sales prices. He held a hearing to investigate the cases in greater detail and has issued his report and recommendation. 12. The Expert’s report containing his recommendation is confidential as it contains sensitive market information and there is a requirement to protect a legitimate economic interest. His report comprises the appendix to this report and is attached in the Non-Public part of the agenda. The Expert’s report contains a large number of confidential technical appendices which are available for Members to review in the Members Room at Guildhall. 13. With regard to the significance of the location in the City, Mr Leahy has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and discussed the same with the agents advising on sales prices. 14. He says, “It is clear the site’s location close to world renowned attractions will be of interest in particular to foreign buyers. This will set the pricing tone for the scheme. However the pricing of individual units will centre on the amenity value of each unit and in particular the views to the river and adjacent landmarks. The pricing put forward by (the City) accepts the prices proposed by the applicant for those units without a river view or an oblique river view. The main issue they have identified in evidence, is their opinion that the units with a river view and the penthouses should achieve (higher) prices than those quoted by (the applicants). I believe (the selling agents has) adopted the right approach taking account of the amenity issues and in particular using comparable evidence from One Tower Bridge to determine a schedule priced per individual unit. They have also made reference to other schemes along the Thames which clearly have similar views but variable amenity value in terms of other issues such as proximity to the City and West End facilities as well as businesses in the City.

Page 203 I am acutely aware that with the benefits of the site being in a unique location, which is attractive to foreign buyers from across the world, the pricing of the scheme is very much subject to the vagaries of the world economy, rather than just the UK economy. This makes the outturn values very volatile.” 15. In order to see the effect of the variation in sales prices he carried out two appraisals for the scheme, one using the average asking prices recommended by his appointed selling agent and the second reducing those prices by 5% to determine a worst case scenario. One demonstrated that the scheme could not afford the full amount of the second affordable housing payment, and the other that it could. He says, “This shows the volatility of the residual land value to minor changes in residential sales prices.” and, “Alongside this, I have to consider the issue of the benchmark land value which is also a matter which is volatile, and subject to positive pressures derived from the site’s location, being one of world interest.” 16. His conclusion is that “taking into account my views set out above on the benchmark land value and the potential to achieve the prices set out by (the selling agents), I determine that the amount of the second affordable housing payment due as at July 2014 is £ 3,699,592. This being the sum which is viable whilst maintaining (the agreed) land value and return on cost...” Considerations 17. To be fully compliant with policy the second affordable housing payment would be £7,503,408. It has been shown that this could be achieved if the market conditions were right but the Expert has determined that this may not be achievable because of market volatility. He has determined the figure at £3,699,592, which would produce a total affordable housing payment of £11,203,000. 18. The developer has confirmed that they accept the findings and would make this payment. 19. The City’s consultants have expressed the view that although the Expert has not recommended the full policy compliant payment, the City’s decision to go to arbitration is vindicated by the amount of the second payment award. 20. In your officers’ opinion the amount recommended by the Expert should be accepted. It assures that the City would receive a substantial affordable housing payment, albeit less that would be achieved if the full policy compliant payment were to be made. The fact that the Expert has determined the development can make a much greater payment than the applicants were originally prepared to agree justifies your previous decision not to accept the first payment only. Corporate & Strategic Implications 21. The affordable housing payment would be used by the City to provide affordable housing units and comply with the Local Plan and the London Plan. Conclusion 22. In your officers opinion the amount recommended by the Expert should be accepted. It assures that the City would receive a substantial affordable housing payment, albeit less that would be achieved if the full policy compliant payment were to be made.

Page 204

Appendices Appendix 1 – Sugar Quay Expert Determination. Report by A M Leahy, dated 16 January 2015. This report contains confidential information and is with the papers on the Non-public Agenda. The technical appendices referred to in the appendix are available for Members to review in the Members’ Room at Guildhall. Background Papers Public Report to P&TC and Minutes 22 March 2013 Report to P&TC and Minutes 17 July 2014 Non-Public [Exempt information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972] Expert Determination 16 January 2015 A M Leahy, Bespoke Property Consultants

Annie Hampson Chief Planning Officer & Development Director

T: 020 7332 1238 E: [email protected]

Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 206 Agenda Item 8c

Committee(s): Dated: Planning & Transportation 24 02 2015 Subject: Public Implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment

Summary

On 18th December 2014 the Government announced its revised approach to Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) approvals that will be operative from 6th April 2015. The Government has decided after long deliberation that SuDS approvals will not require a separate regulatory regime as they will be implemented as an additional consideration within the planning system. SuDS approvals will be required for housing developments of 10 units or more and for major commercial developments unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. Planning conditions or planning obligations are to be used to provide clear arrangements for their maintenance over the lifetime of the development.

The published size thresholds suggest that there will probably be 15 to 20 planning applications in the City each year where SuDS provision will be relevant. The City Corporation will also need to respond to consultation requests from neighbouring boroughs as SuDS provision elsewhere will impact on drainage within the City. Most additional work arising from this announcement will be managed by the Department of the Built Environment in its local planning authority role. The process requires the local planning authority to consult the Lead Local Flood Authority on relevant planning applications. There will need to be additional SuDS assessment expertise available to the City Corporation to enable it to fulfil its Lead Local Flood Authority role.

The Government has accepted that these new flood-related responsibilities will represent an additional financial burden on local authorities and has agreed to undertake a ‘new burdens assessment’. To date this has not been produced and no changes in planning application fees have been allowed to cover the cost of this new responsibility. The Government grants already given or proposed will help with initial set up costs but are not sufficient to cover the longer term additional costs anticipated.

The City Corporation as Local Planning Authority will take account of the national approach to SuDS from April 2015 and will consult the City Corporation as Lead Local Flood Authority when required. Officers from the Dept. of the Built Environment will provide or coordinate the response from the Lead Local Flood Authority. The detailed implementation will be overseen by the existing inter-departmental officers’ Flood Risk Steering Group.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\8\1\AI00036184Page\$kgxfusbm.doc 207

Recommendations 1. Members note that the provision of Sustainable Drainage Systems which meet SuDS National Standards will be a relevant planning consideration for some planning applications from April 2015.

2. Members agree the proposed approach that officers from the Dept. of the Built Environment will provide or coordinate the response of the Lead Local Flood Authority to consultations on planning applications from the Local Planning Authority.

Main Report

Background

1. The widespread national floods of 2007 led to the Pitt Review into flood management and the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) that made local authorities the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for their areas. Whilst LLFAs and local planning authorities are separate authorities in two-tier local government areas, within London the boroughs and the City have both responsibilities. Hence the City Corporation became the Lead Local Flood Authority for the City of London with additional responsibilities. It has prepared and adopted a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2012) and a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014) in accordance with its responsibilities under the Act.

2. The Government is committed to better surface water flood risk management through the introduction of ‘sustainable drainage systems’ (SuDS) that can absorb rainfall and slow down surface water flows. It has decided to use the development process to require the creation of additional SuDS features in or on buildings or land.

3. Since 2011 there have been several Government proposals and consultation exercises regarding SuDS as the Government has revised its proposals to reduce their effect on development costs. DEFRA’s original intention to introduce a new separate SuDS approval system met with opposition from the development industry and was out of step with the Government’s wider de- regulatory and cost-cutting agenda. The subsequent introduction of size threshold exemptions and viability exemptions will reduce the practical effect of SuDS.

Government Announcement on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

4. On 18th December 2014 the Government announced its revised approach to SuDS, operative from 6th April 2015. The Government has decided after long deliberation that SuDS approvals will not require a separate regulatory regime

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\8\1\AI00036184Page\$kgxfusbm.doc 208 as they will be implemented as an additional consideration within the planning system. SuDS approval will be required for housing developments of 10 units or more and for major commercial developments unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. Planning conditions or planning obligations are to be used to provide clear arrangements for their maintenance over the lifetime of the development.

5. The Secretary of State has undertaken to issue revised planning guidance before the new system comes into force in April 2015 and to ‘engage with local government on a capacity building programme’. He has consulted on technical consultation arrangements between the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA) and the local planning authorities, and has invited comments on the need for additional funding to meet this new administrative burden.

6. The new guidance will incorporate advice on national standards to be applied to the design and delivery of SuDS. The Government is assuming that local authorities will develop suitable SuDS expertise within their local planning authority function or elsewhere or will buy in suitable skills. At the time of writing the new guidance had not been published though it is less than two months before implementation date.

7. The Government recognises that initial inspection and on-going maintenance of SuDS is essential to ensure they remain effective in reducing the risk of surface water and sewer flooding. Planning conditions and S106 agreements will be used to ensure that SuDS are constructed as designed and arrangements are put in place for on-going maintenance. The management and enforcement of these arrangements will be a planning function and will require additional resources.

8. The Government recently consulted on changes to statutory consultation requirements for planning applications requiring LLFAs and the Environment Agency to engage with local planning authorities on SuDS applications. The Government assumes the LLFAs will have or will acquire the necessary technical expertise to perform this role. Additional technical expertise will be required within the City Corporation to enable it to fulfil these roles.

Consequences of SuDS Implementation for the City

9. Size thresholds and viability: The published size thresholds mean that there will probably be 15 to 20 planning applications in the City each year where SuDS approval will be a relevant consideration. The City Corporation may also be consulted by neighbouring boroughs on SuDS provision outside of the City which could impact on the City’s drainage networks. Complying with SuDS requirements would be an additional cost for major developments but there remains scope for developers to argue that SuDS should not be provided where their cost would threaten scheme viability. The densely developed character of the City means that in some cases ground-level SuDS would not be practical though some SuDS might still be possible elsewhere, e.g., green roofs and upper level storage tanks.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\8\1\AI00036184Page\$kgxfusbm.doc 209 10. Organisational implications: Most additional work arising from this announcement will be managed by the local planning authority. The procedure requires it to consult the Lead Local Flood Authority on relevant planning applications. There will need to be additional SuDS assessment expertise available to the City Corporation to enable it to fulfil its Lead Local Flood Authority role. Engineers in the Department of the Built Environment have some expertise but will need further training, especially in SuDS cost assessment to address viability arguments. Arrangements will to some extent depend on further Government announcements on funding and other details.

11. Funding: The Government has in the past provided some non-ring-fenced funds for additional flood risk related responsibilities. Most have been used to prepare flood risk documents previously approved by this Committee such as the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2012) and the Local Flood Risk Management Plan (2014) and to fund a flood resilience officer temporary post. The Government provided a ring-fenced grant of £24,000 in 2013/14 to help prepare for SuDS. A further similar grant proposed for 2014/15 has not yet been received. A non-ring-fenced addition to the Local Services Support Grant for 2014/15 of £15,000 was awarded to assist with duties as a Lead Local Flood Authority.

12. The Government has accepted that these new flood-related responsibilities will represent an additional financial burden on local authorities and has undertaken to carry out a ‘new burdens assessment’. To date this has not been produced and no changes in planning application fees have been made to cover the cost of this new responsibility. Government grants given and proposed will help with initial set up costs but are not sufficient to cover the longer term additional costs anticipated.

Options

13. The City Corporation has a range of statutory duties with regard to flood risk in its roles as Local Planning Authority, Lead Local Flood Authority and as a Category 1 Responder under the Civil Contingencies Act. From April 2015 it will have to implement the national approach to SuDS approvals in accordance with its Local Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority duties.

Proposals

14. It is proposed that the City Corporation as Local Planning Authority takes account of the national approach to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) from April 2015 and consults the City Corporation as Lead Local Flood Authority when required. Officers from within the Department of the Built Environment will provide or coordinate the response from the Lead Local Flood Authority. The detailed implementation will be overseen by the existing inter-departmental officers’ Flood Risk Steering Group.

Corporate and Strategic Implications

15. The proposed actions will fulfil the City Corporation’s statutory duties as Lead Local Flood Authority and as Local Planning Authority and will contribute to the

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\8\1\AI00036184Page\$kgxfusbm.doc 210 delivery of its Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and its Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Conclusion

16. The City Corporation’s will implement the national approach to SuDS approvals from April 2015 as Local Planning Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority, which will help deliver its Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. However, further details are still awaited from the Government before the detailed implications and organisational consequences can be established.

Appendices: None

. Background Papers . Planning & Transportation Committee Report 2nd June 2011 – Flood Risk – New Duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 . Planning & Transportation Committee Report 21st February 2012 - City Corporation's Response to the Government’s Consultation on the Implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Provisions in Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act (2010)

. Paul Beckett . Policy & Performance Director, Dept of the Built Environment . . T: 020 7332 1970 . E: [email protected]

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\8\1\AI00036184Page\$kgxfusbm.doc 211 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 212 Agenda Item 8d

Committee(s) Dated:

Policy and Resources Committee – For decision 19/02/2015 Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee – For Information 23/02/2015 Planning and Transportation Committee – For decision 24/02/2015

Subject: Public Cycle Superhighways – The Mayor’s Decision

Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment

Summary

Following consultation, the Mayor of London has decided to proceed with his programme of Cycle Superhighways in London; in particular, the East/West and North/South routes within the City of London. The Transport for London Board endorsed this position on 4 February 2015.

The City responded to the consultation and expressed concerns about:  Road safety  Pedestrian convenience  Local access  Network resilience  Knock on impacts on the City’s highways

Whilst concerns remain for the City about some of the local impacts, the Cycle Superhighway proposals are a key element of the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling and are seen by him as being beneficial overall for London. The documentation presented by TfL to their Board (circulated as a separately bound appendix to this report) confirms this position and shows a positive overall outcome for London.

The Mayor’s proposals are most beneficial for cyclists. However, the City has consistently expressed concern about the needs of those on foot and it has been possible to agree with TfL for improvements to be made throughout the rest of the City that will benefit pedestrians. The most significant of these will be a shift in signal timings to better serve the needs of those on foot.

The City Corporation has consistently supported the principle of the Cycle Superhighway whilst expressing considerable reservations regarding the design detail.Changes have been made at Ludgate Circus but there are no further design changes that TfL are willing or able to make to the cycling proposals at this point in time. This leaves access to Trinity Square and narrow footways at Tower Hill as the two significant detailed points of concern that remain. However, TfL acknowledge that further changes to their proposals are desirable and they have offered to work with the City to make improvements.

Page 213 Bearing in mind the position reached and the documentation now provided by TfL, officers recommend that Members accept that the cycling proposals will be implemented and that Castle Baynard Street can be used for the East/West Cycle Superhighway.

Recommendation(s)

Members are asked to:

 Accept the Mayor of London’s proposals for Cycle Superhighways within the City of London, as set out in separately bound appendix of this report.  Agree that Officers work with TfL to facilitate introducing the proposals using the powers and authority available to the City Corporation.  Direct officers to work with TfL to identify and bring forward further improvements to the Cycle Superhighway infrastructure.

Page 214 Main Report

Background

1. The original proposals were presented to Members in October last year. At that time there were concerns about aspects of the proposals and a complete lack of information on the impacts of the changes. Transport for London began to release information and, consequently, a further report was considered by Members in November. A detailed response to the consultation was authorised and sent. Subsequently, a number of meetings took place with senior TfL staff; involving Members and officers.

Current Position

2. TfL has made limited adjustments to their proposals for the North/South and East/West Cycle Superhighways across London and also within the City of London. Changes have been made to deliver improvements for pedestrians at Ludgate Circus but the ‘experience’ for pedestrians trying to cross the Cycle Superhighways elsewhere within the City remains poor. TfL has also modified the East/West route through the City to provide for greater capacity for the movement of motor vehicles. This change reduces delay to traffic throughout London but means that concerns over access to the Trinity Square area have not been addressed.

3. The main paper presented to the TfL Board is attached to this report as Appendix 1. The TfL paper sets out, for the first time, the overall impact of all of the proposed Cycle Superhighways; individually and collectively. Very simply, the proposals are portrayed as being beneficial for London. But, it is acknowledged by TfL that there are disbenefits for some users and in some local areas.

4. The consultation from TfL generated a huge number of responses. It is said that the majority of those were in support. Public campaigns were generated and the emotion of the debate often spilt out into the public arena via social media and newspaper articles.

5. Without exception, the local Authorities impacted by the Cycle Superhighway proposals supported the proposals in principle but also expressed concern at the lack of detail provided. After some information was provided by TfL the concern remained and focussed on the impacts of the proposals.

TfL’s Proposals

6. The position that the City finally reached through discussion with the Mayor and TfL is this:

7. Overall changes made to proposals

Page 215  Most of the City’s 13 detailed requests have not been adopted or addressed. However, this means that the proposals are workable but, in the view of your officers, poor (The greatest concerns that remain relate to access to Trinity Square and footway widths at Tower Hill)

8. Changes proposed

 Some change at Ludgate Circus: (direct crossings for pedestrians on Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill).  Turns from Lower Thames Street into Fish Street Hill have been reinstated.  Widening of a pedestrian crossing at Tower Hill.  Greater capacity for east/west traffic movement is proposed but was not asked for by the City.

9. Significant remaining concerns

 Appropriate and safe access into the Trinity Square area for vehicles servicing the six hotels, the offices, the residential and public transport related buildings.Reduced footway widths in the vicinity of the Tower of London.  Isolation of residents south of the East-West route. They have the same routes of access but more limited routes for egress. Journey times along the route will increase and therefore it may take longer to access premises along the route.

10. Commitments offered by TfL

 Work with the City to develop a much better long term solution at Blackfriars.  Work with the City to develop a surface level crossing to the riverside (New Blackfriars Pier location) at Puddle Dock.  To work in close partnership with the City to manage the construction.  To work in close partnership with the City to monitor the operation of the new infrastructure and improve the timings for pedestrians, if possible.

11. Commitments asked for by City and agreed by TfL

 Provide resources (funding) to help the City secure approvals and manage the implementation (at present, 3 people are envisaged but it could require more)  Help the City to improve the environment for pedestrians throughout the rest of the City, by way of compensation/mitigation for the direct impact of the cycle routes. This will be covered in two ways: i. Alter the traffic signal operating plans to better prioritise pedestrians off the Superhighway routes ii. Support the City to deliver change projects to enhance the sense of place and prioritise the pedestrian throughout the City (funding and approvals)

Corporate & Strategic Implications

Page 216 12. The Cycle Superhighways accord with many of the City’s strategic and corporate policy objectives. The reduction in motor vehicles should deliver components of the Air Quality Strategy, the Climate Change Mitigation Strategy, the Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the Noise Strategy. The proposals should lead to a reduction in casualties on the City’s Streets.

Implications

13. These proposals, to deliver a major component of the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, will hasten the changing patterns and types of movement on the City’s streets.

14. TfL maintain that it will be managing traffic throughout London to ensure that central and inner London continues to operate well whilst the Superhighways and other schemes are constructed. As an organisation, it managed this well during the Olympics in 2012 and it must do the same again for the sake of London and the City.

15. The Mayor requires the City to play a supporting role in delivering the cycling infrastructure, mainly as Highway and Traffic Authority for local streets within the City of London. A project is already open (Mayor’s Vision for Cycling) so the detailed approvals and permissions can be progressed through the City of London’s normal project governance processes. Currently it is still not clear what permissions and actions are required of the City, or the timescales involved. However, the challenging agenda set by the Mayor for work to start in April 2015 indicates that much is expected of the City of London within a shortspace of time.

16. Many on-going issues will be of a technical nature and solutions will be found but formal consultation is still to happen for the detailed Traffic Regulation Order changes. It could be that many individuals or representative organisations within the City object to the details of the orders. In that circumstance, the City must retain its right to determine the outcome of those objections based on their merit.

17. Further public consultations are expected in the coming months for three Cycle Superhighways that also touch the City. These are CS1, CS3 upgrade and CS4. Of these three, CS4 will have the greatest impact as it is due to run across London Bridge and terminate at the north end of the Bridge. Officers have no information on any of these three proposals but will bring them to the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee for consideration.

Conclusion

18. The City Corporation has always supported the principle of the Cycle Superhighways whilst having concerns about their design. Despite senior level discussions with TfL at Officer and Member level little of what the City asked for by way of modifications to the design have been accepted although some improvements for pedestrians elsewhere have been secured along with other commitments being agreed by TfL as set out above. The Superhighways proposals have now been agreed by the TfL Board; on 4 February 2015. This is a

Page 217 TfL scheme, primarily on their roads, and in the circumstances Officers are recommending that Members accept that the cycling proposals will be implemented and that Castle Baynard Street can be used for the East/West Cycle Superhighway.

Appendices

 Appendix 1 – TfL report to the TfL Board

Background Papers none

Iain Simmons Assistant Director (City Transportation) Department of the Built Environment

T: 020 7332 1151 E: [email protected]

Page 218 Agenda Item 8e

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Planning & Transportation Committee 24/02/2015

Projects Sub-Committee 23/02/2015

Subject: Public Department of Built Environment Projects Programme Report of: Director of the Department for the Built For Decision Environment

Summary

This report and the attached Department of Built Environment Project Programme document at Appendix 1 sets out the current programme for all Department of the Built Environment capital projects. The report seeks approvals for project initiation for five new projects at Gateway 2, which can be considered in the light of the full programme of projected work set out in the document. As well as the full project schedule this document includes Area Strategy project programmes, information on finances and funding, and an assessment of traffic impact of implementing projects.

The report aims to provide an overview of all projects to assist Members in decision making. These projects originate in three ways. Firstly, and primarily, they are agreed and prioritised through Planning and Transportation Committee and the Court of Common Council as part of the process of agreeing and adopting Area Environmental Enhancement Strategies (‘Area Strategies’). Secondly they may be approved by Members following the direct request of a developer/occupier to enhance an area around their building. These projects would be legally binding through either S106 or s278 agreements. Finally they may be specific environmental enhancement projects funded by Transport for London (TfL), or rarely through City funding. This report also sets out the funding sources for the projects, which are predominantly external to the City’s own funds and the estimated delivery and spend on projects over the next three financial years.

It is recommended that Members:

 Note the full programme of projects being undertaken by the Department of Built Environment as set out in the Project Programme Document in Appendix 1.  Approve projects at Gateway 2 for the projects set out in Appendix 2

Page 219

Department of Built Environment Project Programme

1. This report and its appendices set out an overview of current projects, in order to enable Members to keep appraised of the project programme and to control the implementation and co-ordination of projects. This includes those projects that have been completed, those currently being implemented and those that have been approved in principle by the Planning and Transportation Committee and Court of Common Council, and are envisaged will be delivered over the next few years, subject to funding.

2. The Department of Built Environment Project Programme document at Appendix 1, is intended to make project management information more available within and outside the department. As more information is collected and analysis is carried out the information in this document will be added to keep Members appraised of activity, costs and impacts on a comparative basis. For instance, in the document a section has been included on schemes that have been completed since the previous report was put in front of Committees. The table setting out the assessment related to the traffic impact of the implementation of the projects now shows the projected impact by quarter. This is intended to further assists in planning and prioritising the implementation of projects, so as to minimise the impact of projects on City streets and traffic congestion. Officers are using this information to make decisions around the timing of project delivery, where this is possible, and to assess whether actual impact was reduced through planning and coordination.

3. The format and content of the programme document will continue to develop and respond to Member input and collection and analysis of more information. This is with the aim of monitoring performance against estimated programme, budget and time allocations.

Gateway 2 Approvals

4. To give an indication of those projects likely to be brought forward in coming years from all sources, a schedule of ‘Project Zeros’ is kept on Project Vision and regularly updated. The current schedule is set out in Appendix 1. There are some IT and lighting projects included in the schedule, however this schedule is predominantly made up of:

 All projects that form part of an approved Environmental Enhancement or Transport Strategy.  Projects that are agreed through signed Section.106 Agreements  Projects that are agreed through signed Section.278 Agreements

5. As agreed by Members in May 2013, projects will be brought forward from the current Project Vision Schedule of Gateway Zeros in accordance with agreed priority. Occasionally, a project not previously identified may be brought forward where there is an urgent need for the project and where funding is available to implement the project. In considering projects brought forward for initiation Members will be able to assess the priorities being recommended by officers in the context of the whole potential work programme.

6. The following table sets out the projects that gained initiation approval Gateway 2 as part of the approval of the last Department of Built Environment Project Programme report:

Page 220

MITRE SQUARE (S.106) A project working Group has been established for this S.106 funded project that includes City officers, the developer of International House, and the Head Master of the Sir John Cass School. The project has progressed and obtained Gateway 3 Approval in January 2015. ST.BARTHOLOMEWS This project was initiated on advice that the S.106 funding HOSPITAL (S.106) for the enhancements planned for the streets around the hospital would be imminently received. However this has not been the case and no progress will be made until the S.106 contribution has been paid. Officers are continuing to seek payment of this funding in line with the S.106 Agreement ST.MARY AT HILL A project working group has been established that has met three times to date. This group includes a Ward Member, City officers and Parish and Diocesan representatives. Ground & Drainage Surveys and information gathering are underway.

7. At this time it is recommended that five projects are brought forward for approval at Gateway 2

Monument Street The redevelopment of 11-19 Monument Street has created an opportunity for improving the public realm around the site, to be funded entirely through Section 106 and Section 278 contributions. The project will principally focus on improvements to Fish Street Hill, Pudding Lane and the area around the Monument to the south of the development. Breams Buildings The project will involve public realm enhancements to Breams Buildings, a locally significant east-west pedestrian route. The opportunity to deliver the project has arisen as a result of the redevelopment at 25-32 Chancery Lane. The scheme is fully externally funded through the Section 106 Agreement connected to this development. The City of London has received written confirmation from the developer that, should the total cost of the preferred enhancement option be greater than the above allocation, they would be prepared to make a further financial contribution to cover the shortfall. Cursitor Street As part of the process of reinstatement following redevelopment impact on Cursitor Street, an opportunity has arisen to consider a redesign of the western end of the street. The permanent closure and enhancement of the street originally took place in 2010 through a TfL-funded project, delivered as part of the Chancery Lane Area Strategy. However, recent redevelopment on both sides of the street has presented an opportunity to look again at the function and design of the street, in order to determine how

Page 221

it can function most appropriately, given the new form and uses of the buildings facing on to it. 60-70 St. Mary Axe The project will involve public realm enhancement to the area surrounding 60-70 St Mary Axe including improvements to carriageway and footways, fully funded under a Section 106/Section 278 agreement by the developer 1 Angel Court The project will involve public realm enhancements in the vicinity of Angel Court, a north-south route, which is part of a locally significant pedestrian network. The opportunity to deliver the project has arisen as a result of the redevelopment at 33 Throgmorton Street, 1 Angel Court and 41 Lothbury. The scheme will be fully and externally funded through the Section 106 Agreement connected to this development.

Gateway 2 reports for these three projects are in Appendix two to this report, along with a map of the showing their locations.

Legal Implications

8. Projects can require varying degrees of legal input under a potentially wide range of issues such as agreements with third party funders; identifying affected land ownerships and agreements with affected land owners; agreements with neighbouring authorities; statutory processes required to implement highways or traffic changes; procurement; issues arising from implementation such as claims arising from works carried out. This is provided by Comptroller and City Solicitor’s staff as far as possible, but the feasibility of this will depend on the number and scope of active projects. Therefore the resource requirements of a project in terms of legal issues should be identified and taken into account in determining project programmes and/or cost. The information contained in the project schedules makes this process easier to determine and manage.

Conclusion

The programme for Department of the Built Environment projects continues to keep pace with the change of built environment in the City, and in the changing pattern and mode of movement in the City’s streets. This is providing for the planned growth identified in the Local Plan. There continues to be a projected growth in cycling and an increase in the daytime population, increase in night-time economy, visitor activity and significant improvements to transport links. All of this pressure requires strategy and management, with planned changes through the implementation of projects that align the City’s infrastructure with the changing City. The Environmental Enhancement Area Strategy approach has proved to be an effective way of setting out this change, and will remain the main co-ordinating mechanism to ensure proper community consultation and joined up project delivery for enhancement projects.

Page 222

Officers will continue to develop the collection and analysis of information that will assist Members in governance and decision making related to project control and share this through future versions of the programme document attached in Appendix.1.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Department of Built Environment Project Programme Appendix 2 Gateway 2 Short Form Reports

Contact

Report Author Victor Callister Email Address [email protected] Telephone Number 0207 332 3468

Page 223

Appendix.1

Department of Built Environment Project Programme Information Document

Page 224

Appendix.2

Projects for Initiation Gateway 2 Reports

Page 225

Page 226

Project Gateway 1 & 2 Project: 11-19 Monument Street: Street Enhancements Public (EE105) Report of: Director of the Built Environment For Decision

Overview

1. Spending Committee Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee. 2. Project Board A Project Board is not recommended given the scale and nature of this project. However, it is proposed to establish a Working Party comprising representatives of the Developer (Skanska), City Corporation, and other relevant local stakeholders. Ward Members will be made aware of the details of the Working Party meetings. 3. Area Strategy Authorising Committee and date of Authorisation The project area sits within the Fenchurch & Monument Area Enhancement Strategy (approved by Court of Common Council in 2013). 4. Brief description of project The redevelopment of 11-19 Monument Street has created an opportunity for improving the public realm around the site, to be funded entirely through Section 106 and Section 278 contributions. The project will principally focus on improvements to Fish Street Hill, Pudding Lane and the area around the Monument to the south of the development. A map of the proposed project area is shown in Appendix 1. The project is not considered to have an impact on the resilience of the highway network. There is no anticipated impact on the cycle superhighway project, however any potential impacts will be carefully monitored. The project objectives are: - To enhance Fish Street Hill as a key arrival point from Monument Underground Station and facilitate increased pedestrian numbers associated with the growing Eastern City Cluster and tourists visiting the Monument; - To deliver an enhanced public realm on Pudding Lane; - To secure public realm improvements to the south of the development that are commensurate with the historic setting and significance of this location adjacent to the Monument; - To deliver public realm enhancements to a timetable that enables the possible staging of a public event to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the in September 2016 (the feasibility of which is currently being assessed by the Department of Culture, Heritage and Libraries); - To ensure that the required functions of the street are maintained, and; - To improve accessibility for all throughout the area.

The project scope (derived from the Fenchurch & Monument Area Enhancement Strategy) will include: - Facilitating ease of movement for pedestrians using Monument Underground Station;

Page 227

- Preserving or enhancing the special character of the area by utilising a materials palette of York stone and walkable granite setts, where appropriate; - Exploring opportunities for both permanent and managed seating around the Monument; - Reviewing the requirement for parking on Fish Street Hill; - Identifying opportunities for street trees and planting where feasible, and; - Providing cycle parking provisions where possible.

5. Do materials used comply with ‘material review’ approved use? Yes. 6. Success Criteria  A safe, attractive and welcoming street environment;  An enhanced public realm, with opportunities to dwell around the Monument whilst maintaining the movement functions of adjacent streets;  Improved quality and consistency of surface materials in the local area with the introduction / extension / retention of appropriate paving treatments;  A clear design link with previous improvements around the Monument;  Improved accessibility for all people and particularly those with mobility impairment, and;  Increased sense of health and wellbeing for people using the area. 7. Key options to be considered The key options to be considered will include:  Raising the carriageway at the southern end of Fish Street Hill;  Increasing vehicle restrictions or pedestrianisation of Fish Street Hill;  Exploring the most appropriate surface treatments for Pudding Lane;  Providing permanent and/or managed seating to the south of the development;  Introducing street trees or other greenery, and;  Providing cycle parking in the locality. These options and their prioritisation will be developed at the options appraisal stage and will be in accordance with the Fenchurch & Monument Area Enhancement Strategy. 8. Links to other existing strategies, programmes and/or projects The project will link with the Fenchurch & Monument Area Enhancement Strategy as noted above, taking into consideration the design aspirations set out in the Strategy document. The design will also need to fully consider the environmental enhancement project completed in 2007 surrounding the Monument. The department of Culture Heritage & Libraries is currently exploring the feasibility of staging of a public event to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London in September 2016. Given the project location and its significance for the Great Fire, the programme for the works will need to be fully integrated into the planning and delivery of this event should the decision be taken to proceed. An external visual screen, displaying live images from the top of the Monument on the ground, is proposed in Monument Yard as part of making the building more accessible, which is a separate project currently at G5 stage being implemented by the City Surveyor for the client department Culture Heritage & Libraries. 9. Within which category does this project fit?

Page 228

Fully reimbursable. Asset enhancement/improvement (capital). 10. What is the priority of the project Advisable.

Financial Implications

11. Likely capital/supplementary revenue cost range £250k - £500k (estimated project cost of between £300k - £350k) 12. Potential source (s) of funding The project will be fully funded through the Section 106 and Section 278 agreements associated with 11-19 Monument Street, including any interest accrued. Any highway works that may reasonably be required as a result of the development at 11-19 Monument Street will be funded from a s278 agreement. The scope of the Section 278 works is currently being determined but is currently estimated to be in the order of £125,000 to £175,000. For the enhancement of the project area a total of £177,387 is available through the s106 agreement at 11-19 Monument Street comprising:  Local Community & Environmental Improvement Works (LCEIW) contribution of £136,452.  Transport Improvements Works (TIW) contribution of £40,935. The full LCEIW and TIW contributions have now been received. It is intended that these works are fully co-ordinated with the proposed Section 106 works in delivering a single design solution for this location. 13. On-going revenue requirements and departmental local risk budget (s) affected The majority of the area is currently maintained as City highway, there is a small area to the south of the development that falls within the ownership of 11-19 Monument Street. The design options are unlikely to result in an increase in maintenance costs, however any potential increases will be carefully assessed, steps taken to minimise these increases where possible and funding sought within the project to cover these additional costs, particularly in relation to Highways, Open Spaces and Cleansing. Any specific additional revenue costs will be identified and considered at the options appraisal stage and built into the project implementation budget. 14. Indicative Procurement Approach It is anticipated that all works will be undertaken by the City’s term contractor, J.B. Riney. The use of J.B. Riney will be confirmed in future Gateway reports. 15. Major risks Overall Project - Low Risk Risk breakdown: 1. Full cost of works unknown

Page 229

As the design options are identified the likely cost of the scheme will be established. The scope of the project will be tailored to ensure delivery within the available funding. 2. Project exceeds budget Monitor costs closely and phase expenditure based on essential and optional elements of the scheme to ensure the budget is not exceeded. 3. Key stakeholders oppose the proposed enhancement works Officers will provide detailed information and briefings to stakeholders throughout the design and evaluation stages, including wider consultation with local residents. A stakeholder Working Party is also proposed to guide the design development between project gateways. 16. Anticipated stakeholders and consultees Anticipated external stakeholders:  Developer of 11-19 Monument Street - Skanska  Owners / occupiers of adjacent buildings  Local residents  London Underground  English Heritage  City of London Police  Ward Members Internal stakeholders will include:  Highways  Cleansing  Open Spaces 17. Sustainability Implications It is anticipated that all materials will be sustainably sourced where possible and be suitably durable for construction purposes. This will be confirmed as design options are refined. 18. Resource requirements to reach next Gateway

Works Cost

P&T Staff Costs £15,000

Highways Staff Costs £5,000

Fees £5,000

Total £25,000

The P&T staff cost allocation will allow the City to progress the project to Options Appraisal at Gateway 3, conduct consultation work including liaison with local stakeholders and Members and to prepare necessary reports back to Members. This represents approximately 150 hours, including input of the Assistant Director. The highways staff costs will enable officer time to be spent on this project at the earliest possible opportunity, particularly with regards to the interface of the new

Page 230

development with the street. Given the challenging topography and levels in the project area, the fees allocation will enable topographic and radar surveys to be undertaken to ensure that any later design proposals are realistic and achievable. All of the above costs will be funded from the Section 106 agreement associated with the development of 11-19 Monument Street. 19. Light, Regular or Complex approval track Regular.

Page 231

Appendix 1 – Map of the project area

Page 232

Project Gateway 1 & 2 Project: Breams Buildings Reinstatement & Public Enhancement (EE067) Report of: Director of the Built Environment For Decision

Overview

2. Spending Committee Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee. 2. Project Board A Project Board is not recommended given the scale and nature of this project. However, it is proposed to establish a Working Party comprising representatives of the Developer, City Corporation, the Chancery Lane Association and other relevant local stakeholders. Ward Members will be made aware of the details of the Working Party meetings. 3. Area Strategy Authorising Committee and date of Authorisation The project area sits within the Chancery Lane Area Strategy (approved by Court of Common Council in 2009). 4. Brief description of project The project will involve public realm enhancements to Breams Buildings, a locally significant east-west pedestrian route. The opportunity to deliver the project has arisen as a result of the redevelopment at 25-32 Chancery Lane; a map of the proposed project area is shown in Appendix 1. The scheme is fully externally funded through the Section 106 Agreement connected to this development. The project is not considered to have an impact on the resilience of the highway network. The project objectives are: - To deliver an enhanced public realm on Breams Buildings; - To find a suitable location for the existing Cycle Hire docking station, and to look to increase the number of docking points if possible; - To reflect the character of the Chancery Lane Conservation Area, in line with the objectives set out in the Chancery Lane Area Strategy; - To ensure that the required functions of the street are maintained, and; - To improve accessibility for all throughout the area.

The project scope (derived from the Chancery Lane Area Strategy) will include: - Creation of an enhanced public space following the partial closure of the street to motor vehicles (existing situation); - Using appropriate materials throughout, reflecting the character of the Conservation Area; - Introducing street tree planting where feasible, and; - Providing cycle parking provisions where possible. 5. Do materials used comply with ‘material review’ approved use? Yes. The choice of materials will reflect the status of the street within the Conservation Area, likely to be York stone and walkable granite setts. 6. Success Criteria  Enhancement of the public realm, creating a dwell space whilst maintaining the movement function of the street;

Page 233

 Improve the quality and consistency of surface materials in the local area with the introduction / extension / retention of appropriate paving treatments;  Show a clear design link with previous improvements at Chancery Lane and Cursitor Street;  Improving accessibility for all people and particularly those with mobility impairment, and;  Increasing the sense of health and wellbeing for people using the area. 7. Key options to be considered The key options to be considered will include:  The potential relocation and extension of the existing Cycle Hire docking station;  The potential introduction of street trees or other greenery, and;  The provision of seating and cycle parking. These options and their prioritisation will be developed at the options appraisal stage and will be in accordance with the relevant area strategy. 8. Links to other existing strategies, programmes and/or projects The project will link with the Chancery Lane Area Strategy as noted above, taking into consideration the design aspirations set out in the Strategy document. The design will also consider the previously completed projects at Chancery Lane and Cursitor Street. 9. Within which category does this project fit? Fully reimbursable. Asset enhancement/ improvement (capital). 10. What is the priority of the project Advisable.

Financial Implications

11. Likely capital/supplementary revenue cost range Under £250k (estimated project cost of between £100k - £150k) 12. Potential source (s) of funding The project will be fully funded through the relevant planning obligation (section 106 agreement). The agreement stipulates that the total Local Community & Environmental Improvement Works (LCEIW) contribution of £125,641 be split as follows: - No more than £20,000 for air quality projects; - At least £80,000 for Environmental Improvement Works; - No more than £25,641 for the provision of other works or facilities for the benefit of the local community. There is also a total of £37,692 allocated for transport improvements. The full LCEIW and transport contributions have been received. The City of London has received written confirmation from the developer that, should the total cost of the preferred enhancement option be greater than the above allocation, they would be prepared to make a further financial contribution to cover the shortfall.

Page 234

13. On-going revenue requirements and departmental local risk budget (s) affected The area is currently maintained as City highway. The design options are unlikely to result in an increase in maintenance costs, however any potential increases will be carefully assessed, steps taken to minimise these increases where possible and funding sought within the project to cover these additional costs, particularly in relation to Highways, Open Spaces and Cleansing. Any specific additional revenue costs over a five year period will be identified and considered at the options appraisal stage and built into the project implementation budget 14. Indicative Procurement Approach It is anticipated that all works will be undertaken by the City’s term contractor, J.B. Riney. The use of J.B. Riney will be confirmed in future Gateway reports. 15. Major risks Overall Project - Low Risk Risk breakdown: 1. Full cost of works unknown As the design options are identified the likely cost of the scheme will be established. The scope of the project will be tailored to ensure delivery within the available funding. 2. Project exceeds budget Monitor costs closely and phase expenditure based on essential and optional elements of the scheme to ensure the budget is not exceeded. 3. Key stakeholders oppose the proposed enhancement works Officers will provide detailed information and briefings to stakeholders throughout the design and evaluation stages, including wider consultation with local residents. A stakeholder Working Party is also proposed to guide the design development between project gateways. 16. Anticipated stakeholders and consultees Anticipated external stakeholders:  Developer of 25-32 Chancery Lane  Chancery Lane Association  Local residents  City of London Police  Owners / occupiers of adjacent buildings  Ward Members Internal stakeholders will include:  Highways  Cleansing  Open Spaces 17. Sustainability Implications It is anticipated that all materials will be sustainably sourced where possible and be suitably durable for construction purposes. This will be confirmed as design options are refined. 18. Resource requirements to reach next Gateway

Page 235

Total - £10,000. Staff allocation - £10,000. This will allow the City to progress the project to Options Appraisal at Gateway 3, conduct consultation work including liaison with local stakeholders and to prepare necessary reports back to Members. This represents around 125 hours, including input of the Assistant Director. All costs and will be funded from the Local Community and Environmental Improvement Works contribution and the Transport contribution from the 25-32 Chancery Lane S106 agreement. 19. Approval track Light.

Page 236

Appendix 1 – Map of the project area

Page 237

Project Gateway 1 & 2 Project: Cursitor Street: Street Improvements – EE112 Public Report of: Director of the Built Environment For Decision

Overview

3. Spending Committee Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee. 2. Project Board A Project Board is not recommended given the scale and nature of this project. Ward Members will be made aware of the details of any stakeholder engagement. 3. Area Strategy Authorising Committee and date of Authorisation The project area sits within the Chancery Lane Area Strategy (approved by Court of Common Council in 2009). 4. Brief description of project As part of the process of reinstatement following redevelopment impact on Cursitor Street, an opportunity has arisen to consider a redesign of the western end of the street. The project is not considered to have an impact on the resilience of the highway network. The permanent closure and enhancement of the street originally took place in 2010 through a TfL-funded project, delivered as part of the Chancery Lane Area Strategy. However, recent redevelopment on both sides of the street has presented an opportunity to look again at the function and design of the street, in order to determine how it can function most appropriately, given the new form and uses of the buildings facing on to it.

Therefore, as part of the reparation process for the street, the project will: - Reassess the function of Cursitor Street in relation to surrounding streets and buildings; - Consider the implementation of street trees, which were an original aspiration of the Area Strategy for this street, subject to sub-surface utilities; - Ensure that the design reflects the character of the Chancery Lane Conservation Area, in line with the objectives set out in the Chancery Lane Area Strategy; - Ensure that the required functions of the street are maintained, and; - Improve accessibility for all throughout the area.

The project scope (derived from the Chancery Lane Area Strategy) will include: - Using appropriate materials throughout, reflecting the character of the Conservation Area; - Introducing street tree planting where feasible, and; - Providing new public seating (included in the previous scheme). 5. Do materials used comply with ‘material review’ approved use? Yes. The choice of materials will reflect the status of the street within the Conservation Area, likely to be York stone and walkable granite setts. 6. Success Criteria  Enhancement of the public realm whilst maintaining the movement function of the street;  Improve the quality and consistency of surface materials in the local area with

Page 238

the introduction / extension / retention of appropriate paving treatments;  Show a clear design link with other local improvements in the Chancery Lane area;  Improving accessibility for all people and particularly those with mobility impairment, and;  Increasing the sense of health and wellbeing for people using the area. 7. Key options to be considered The key options to be considered will include:  The introduction of street trees, subject to sub-surface utilities;  The provision of seating, and;  The lighting of the area, taking into consideration the new frontages on either side of the street. These options and their prioritisation will be developed at the options appraisal stage and will be in accordance with the relevant area strategy. 8. Links to other existing strategies, programmes and/or projects The project will link with the Chancery Lane Area Strategy as noted above, taking into consideration the design aspirations set out in the Strategy document. The design will also consider the previously completed project at Chancery Lane, and emerging projects at Southampton Buildings and Breams Buildings. 9. Within which category does this project fit? Fully reimbursable. Asset enhancement/ improvement (capital). 10. What is the priority of the project Advisable.

Financial Implications

11. Likely capital/supplementary revenue cost range The estimated project cost is between £160k and £180k of which approximately £100k - £120k of this expenditure will be on physical works, with the remainder for staff costs and design / utilities fees. 12. Potential source (s) of funding The project will be fully funded from developer contributions relating to 40-45 Chancery Lane and 35 Chancery Lane, with reparations costs paid by the developer at 40-45 Chancery Lane and highways works required to make the developments acceptable funded through respective Section 278 agreements. Any potential enhancements to the space will be funded through a combination of s278 and any available s106 funding relating to these developments. A portion of the funding related to required reinstatement costs has already been received, which will allow the initial project work to take place. 13. On-going revenue requirements and departmental local risk budget (s) affected The area is currently maintained as City highway. The design options are unlikely to result in an increase in maintenance costs, however any potential increases will be carefully assessed, steps taken to minimise these increases where possible and funding sought within the project to cover these additional costs, particularly in relation to Highways, Open Spaces and Cleansing. Any specific additional revenue

Page 239

costs will be identified and considered at the options appraisal stage and built into the project implementation budget. 14. Indicative Procurement Approach It is anticipated that all works will be undertaken by the City’s term contractor, J.B. Riney. The use of J.B. Riney will be confirmed in future Gateway reports. 15. Major risks Overall Project - Low Risk Risk breakdown: 1. Full cost of works unknown As the design options are identified the likely cost of the scheme will be refined. The scope of the project will be tailored to ensure delivery within the available funding. 2. Key stakeholders oppose the proposed enhancement works Officers will provide detailed information and briefings to stakeholders throughout the design and evaluation stages, including consultation with local occupiers and residents. 16. Anticipated stakeholders and consultees Anticipated external stakeholders:  Developers of 40 Chancery Lane and 35 Chancery Lane;  Chancery Lane Association;  Local residents  Ward Members Internal stakeholders will include:  Highways  Cleansing  Open Spaces 17. Sustainability Implications It is anticipated that all materials will be sustainably sourced where possible and be suitably durable for construction purposes. The design of the space, including elements such as street trees and seating, will take consideration of current and future uses of the space to ensure a sustainable scheme is developed. This will be confirmed as design options are refined. 18. Resource requirements to reach next Gateway Total - £10,000. Staff allocation - £10,000. This will allow the City to progress the project to Options Appraisal at Gateway 3, conduct consultation work including liaison with local stakeholders and to prepare necessary reports back to Members. This represents around 125 hours, including input of the Assistant Director. All costs will be funded from the developer. 19. Approval track Light.

Page 240

Appendix 1 – Map of the project area

Page 241

Project Gateway 1 & 2 Project: 60-70 St Mary Axe – Local Area Street Public Enhancement (EE114) Report of: For Decision Director of the Built Environment

Overview

4. Spending Committee Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee

2. Project Board A Project Board is not recommended given the scale and nature of this project. However, it is proposed to establish a Working Party comprising representatives of the Developer, the City Corporation, and other relevant local stakeholders. Ward Members will be made aware of the details of the Working Party meetings. 3. Area Strategy Authorising Committee and date of Authorisation The project area sits within the Eastern City Cluster strategy area as approved by Members in December 2010.

4. Brief description of project The project will involve public realm enhancement to the area surrounding 60-70 St Mary Axe including improvements to carriageway and footways, fully funded under a Section 106/Section 278 agreement by the developer. A map of the proposed project area is shown in Appendix 1. The project is not considered to have an impact on the resilience of the highway network.

The project objectives are:  To deliver an enhanced public realm on in the vicinity of 60-70 St Mary Axe;  To reflect the objectives of the Eastern City Cluster strategy area;  To ensure that the required functions of the street are maintained, and;  To improve accessibility for all throughout the area.

The project scope will include:  Construction of extended footway width over areas created by the Development set back  Soft and hard landscaping including tree planting irrigation, lighting, public seating and signage  Introduction of public cycle stands  New surface paving to footways and replacement kerbs on both sides of St Mary Axe and Goring Street between Bevis Marks and Houndsditch in high quality materials  Provision or replacement of street lighting and signage  Improvements to or relocation of existing controlled crossing points on Houndsditch and Bevis Marks and/or the construction of new raised tables  Relocation of existing parking bays where appropriate  Drainage and any necessary sub-surface works  Any additional works necessary to ensure the Development properly

Page 242

integrates with the levels of the Highway

5. Do materials used comply with ‘material review’ approved use? Yes the materials will comply.

6. Success Criteria  An enhanced public realm, whilst maintaining the movement function of the street;  Greater quality and consistency of surface materials in the local area with the introduction / extension / retention of appropriate paving treatments;  A clear design link with previous improvements within the Bank area;  Greater accessibility for all people and particularly those with mobility impairment,  Access into the developers refurbished building, and;  An increased sense of health and wellbeing for people using the area.-

7. Key options to be considered Improvement of footways and carriageway in the lower part of St Mary Axe between Camomile Street and Houndsditch, possibly incorporating street trees and landscaping, new street furniture and lighting and prioritising pedestrian access to/from the buildings in this section of the Street.

If necessary to deliver the project, approval is requested to enter into a Section 278 agreement to formalise the funding of the project. 8. Links to other existing strategies, programmes and/or projects This project would deliver on the priorities of the Eastern City Cluster Enhancement Strategy. 9. Within which category does this project fit? Fully reimbursable. 10. What is the priority of the project Advisable. Financial Implications

11. Likely capital/supplementary revenue cost range £650k-£700k of which construction costs are estimated between £575k-£625k

12. Potential source (s) of funding All funding for the project will be provided from the 60-70 St Mary Axe Section 106 agreement or will be provided voluntarily by the developer and formalised via a Section 278 agreement, which is uncapped. This will include:  Transport Improvement Works £268,066  Evaluation and Design Payment £50,000  Pipes and Utilities Survey £30,000  Evaluation and Design Payment Excess (amount to be determined by the City

Page 243

Corporation)  Public Realm Works Costs (amount to be determined by the City Corporation)  Public Realm Works Costs Excess (amount to be determined by the City Corporation)  Total costs of any removal or diversion of statutory undertakers’ and utility services (amount to be determined by these parties)  Any interest accrued from these sums 13. On-going revenue requirements and departmental local risk budget (s) affected It is anticipated that the project would be largely revenue neutral as the area is already cleansed and maintained by the City, however any potential increases will be carefully assessed, steps taken to minimise these increases where possible and funding sought within the project to cover these additional costs, particularly in relation to Highways, Open Spaces and Cleansing. There may be revenue implications if increased soft landscaping is proposed however this will be identified as the design develops and reported at the next Gateway. The S106 agreement for 60-70 St Mary Axe allows for the funding of the maintenance of the public realm works for a limit of five years. The need for additional maintenance funding and/or the scope of the soft landscaping works will be assessed in light of the developing design in consultation with the Working Group.

14. Indicative Procurement Approach It is anticipated that all works will be undertaken by the City’s term contractor, J.B. Riney. The use of J.B. Riney will be confirmed in future Gateway reports.

15. Major risks Overall Project - Low Risk Risk breakdown: 1. Full cost of works unknown As the design options are identified the likely cost of the scheme will be established. The scope of the project will be tailored to ensure delivery within the available Section 106/278 funding. 2. Project exceeds budget Monitor costs closely and phase expenditure based on essential and optional elements of the scheme to ensure the budget is not exceeded. 3. Project not delivered to programme The developer requires the environmental enhancement works to be completed in coordination with their building refurbishment therefore strict adherence to programme will be required to ensure compliance with this date. This area includes a scheduled ancient monument (London Wall and bastion) which is known to survive just below the road surface in Goring Street. Any works may require scheduled monument consent and should be discussed and confirmed with the English Heritage Inspector of Ancient Monuments at the earliest stage.

Page 244

16. Anticipated stakeholders and consultees Anticipated external stakeholders:  Developer of 60-70 St Mary Axe  Owners/occupiers of adjacent buildings on St Mary Axe  Ward Members  English Heritage

Anticipated internal consultees:  City Transportation  Highways  City Surveyors  Open Spaces  Access team  Finance  Cleansing 17. Sustainability Implications It is anticipated that all materials will be sustainably sourced where possible and be suitably durable for construction purposes. This will be confirmed as design options are refined.

18. Resources requirements to reach next Gateway Staff allocation - £15k, which would allow the City to progress the project to Options Appraisal at Gateway 3, conduct consultation work including liaison with local stakeholders and to prepare necessary reports back to Members. This represents 150 hours for options appraisal and evaluation, including the input of the Assistant Director. All costs to reach the next Gateway will be funded from the 60-70 St Mary Axe Section 106 agreement or will be provided voluntarily by the developer and formalised via a Section 278 agreement.

19. Light, Regular or Complex approval track Regular.

Page 245

Appendix 1 – Map of the project area

Page 246

Project Gateway 1 & 2 Project: Angel Court: Environmental Enhancements Public Around Development Site (EE113) Report of: Director of the Built Environment For Decision

Overview

5. Spending Committee Streets & Walkways Sub-Committee. 2. Project Board A Project Board is not recommended given the scale and nature of this project. However, it is proposed to establish a Working Party comprising representatives of the Developer, the City Corporation, and other relevant local stakeholders. Ward Members will be made aware of the details of the Working Party meetings. 3. Area Strategy Authorising Committee and date of Authorisation The project area sits within the Bank Area Strategy (approved by Court of Common Council in 2013). 4. Brief description of project The project will involve public realm enhancements in the vicinity of Angel Court, a north-south route, which is part of a locally significant pedestrian network. The opportunity to deliver the project has arisen as a result of the redevelopment at 33 Throgmorton Street, 1 Angel Court and 41 Lothbury; a map of the proposed project area is shown in Appendix 1. The scheme will be fully and externally funded through the Section 106 Agreement connected to this development. The project is not considered to have an impact on the resilience of the highway network. The project objectives are: - To deliver an enhanced public realm on in the vicinity of Angel Court; - To reflect the objectives of the Bank Area Strategy and the character of the Bank Conservation Area; - To ensure that the required functions of the street are maintained, and; - To improve accessibility for all throughout the area.

The project scope will include: - Creation of an enhanced public space following the partial closure of the street to motor vehicles; - Use of appropriate materials, reflecting the character of the Bank Conservation Area and the Bank Area Strategy; - Introduction of street tree planting where feasible, and; - Improvement of way-finding across the area. 5. Do materials used comply with ‘material review’ approved use? Yes. 6. Success Criteria  An enhanced public realm, whilst maintaining the movement function of the street;  Greater quality and consistency of surface materials in the local area with the introduction / extension / retention of appropriate paving treatments;  A clear design link with previous improvements within the Bank area;  Greater accessibility for all people and particularly those with mobility

Page 247

impairment, and;  An increased sense of health and wellbeing for people using the area. 7. Key options to be considered The key options to be considered will include:  The lighting of the area, taking into consideration the new frontages on either side of the street;  The provision of seating;  The potential introduction of street trees or other greenery, and;  The provision of way-finding. These options and their prioritisation will be developed at the options appraisal stage and will be in accordance with the Bank area strategy. 8. Links to other existing strategies, programmes and/or projects The project will link with the Bank Area Strategy as noted above, taking into consideration the design aspirations set out in the Strategy document. The design will also consider the completed projects at nearby Throgmorton Street, Bartholomew Lane and Austin Friars. 9. Within which category does this project fit? Fully reimbursable. 10. What is the priority of the project Advisable.

Financial Implications

11. Likely capital/supplementary revenue cost range £250k -£500k 12. Potential source (s) of funding The project will be fully funded through developer contributions, in the form of a Section 106 contribution from the redevelopment at 33 Throgmorton Street, 1 Angel Court and 41 Lothbury that breaks down as follows:  Local Community Facilities and Environmental Improvement Works Contribution £254,504  Transport Improvement Works Contribution of £76,351  Any interest accruing from these contributions There may be further funding under a Section 278 agreement once an assessment of works reasonably required enabling integration between the completed development and the highway has taken place. 13. On-going revenue requirements and departmental local risk budget (s) affected The area is currently maintained as City highway. The design options are unlikely to result in an increase in maintenance costs, however any potential increases will be carefully assessed and steps taken to minimise these increases where possible and funding sought within the project to cover these additional costs, particularly in relation to Highways, Open Spaces and Cleansing. Any specific additional revenue costs will be identified and considered at the options appraisal stage and built into the project implementation budget. 14. Indicative Procurement Approach

Page 248

It is anticipated that all works will be undertaken by the City’s term contractor, J.B. Riney. The use of J.B. Riney will be confirmed in future Gateway reports. 15. Major risks Overall Project - Low Risk Risk breakdown: 1. Full cost of works unknown As the design options are identified the likely cost of the scheme will be established. The scope of the project will be tailored to ensure delivery within the available funding. 2. Project exceeds budget Monitor costs closely and phase expenditure based on essential and optional elements of the scheme to ensure the budget is not exceeded. 3. Key stakeholders oppose the proposed enhancement works Officers will provide detailed information and briefings to stakeholders throughout the design and evaluation stages, including wider consultation with local stakeholders. A Working Party is also proposed to guide the design development between project gateways. 16. Anticipated stakeholders and consultees Anticipated external stakeholders:  Developer of 33 Throgmorton Street, 1 Angel Court and 41 Lothbury  City of London Police  Local residents  Owners / occupiers of adjacent buildings  Ward Members Internal Stakeholders will include:  Highways  Cleansing  Open Spaces  Pollution Team 17. Sustainability Implications It is anticipated that all materials will be sustainably sourced where possible and be suitably durable for construction purposes. This will be confirmed as design options are refined. 18. Resource requirements to reach next Gateway Total - £10,000. Staff allocation - £10,000. This will allow the City to progress the project to Options Appraisal at Gateway 3, conduct consultation work including liaison with local stakeholders and to prepare necessary reports back to Members. This represents around 125 hours, including input of the Assistant Director. All costs to reach the next Gateway will be funded from the Local Community and Environmental Improvement Works contribution from the 33 Throgmorton Street, 1 Angel Court and 41 Lothbury Section 106 agreement. 19. Light, Regular or Complex approval track Regular.

Page 249

Appendix 1 – Map of the project area

Page 250

The space between buildings Department of Built Environment Project Programming

Page 251 Page Feb 2015

Page 252 Page Table of Contents:

1. Introduction 2. 2013/2014 Projects: Before and After 5.1 20 Fenchurch Street 5.2 Fenchurch Plaza 5.3 Holborn Circus 5.4 John Carpenter Street 5.5 St Andrews 5.6 Queenhithe Mosaics

Page 253 Page 5.7 Silk Street 3. Financial projections 4. Traffic Impacts of implementing Projects 5. Area Strategies

Appendix: 1. Programme Schedule 2. Area Strategies projects

1. Introduction

This document sets out an overview of current projects, in order to provide an overview of the project programme and to assist in the coordination and implementation of projects. This overview includes those projects that have recently been completed, those currently being implemented and those that are yet to commence. Those that are yet to commence have been approved in principle by the Planning and Transportation Committee and Court of Common Council, and are envisaged will be delivered (subject to funding) over the next few years.

The Department of the Built Environment Project Programme relates primarily to projects that are delivered through one or more of the following:

 The implementation of Environmental Enhancement Area Strategies  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Section 106 and Section 278 Agreements related to development applications  Specific undertakings from City businesses and developers to facilitate the improvement of the immediate area around their building  TfL (Transport for London) funded Environmental Enhancement Projects.

There are in addition a small number of street infrastructure projects, such as street lighting and toilet provision that arise from time to time. Page 254 Page

In order to manage the programme of projects the City uses a co-ordinating software package, Project Vision. This software is compatible with the Prince 2 project management methodology used by the Department of the Built Environment, for the effective management of its projects. Project Vision is aligned with the City’s project governance procedures, and projects are monitored on that basis.

The progress of projects through the corporate system is determined through their approval at defined ‘Gateways’. These are:

Gateway 0: Projects that are included in approved Environmental Enhancement Area Strategies, or are related to developments coming forward through the Town Planning process and have likely TfL or Planning or Highway agreement funding associated with them.

Gateway 1: Approval by the Chief Officers Corporate Project Board.

Gateway 2: Approval by the Projects Sub-Committee as a valid project for outline options appraisal.

Gateway 3: Approval of key option(s) from outline options appraisal.

Gateway 4: Approval for chosen final option to be designed in detail.

Gateway 5: Approval of final budget and implementation of the project.

Gateway 6: Progress and update reports.

Gateway 7: Outcome reports on completion of the project.

In order to oversee greater co-ordination of the funding and implementation of projects, this document seeks to bring together the programme of projects currently approved and co-ordinated through Project Vision with those planned, and to set out the full programme of potential project work. For ease of analysis projects are grouped into the following categories:

Gateway 5-7: Projects approved for implementation (some of which have been substantially completed), but not including completed projects.

Gateway 3-4: Approved projects at various stages of options appraisal, but not yet approved for implementation.

Gateway 1-2: Projects that are being brought forward, for approval as valid projects seeking approval to evaluate options.

Page 255 Page Gateway 0: Projects in approved Environmental Enhancement Area Strategies, tfL programmes and/or coming forward from developments, either with Planning Permission given, or at pre-application stage.

A full schedule of the departments project programme is set out in Appendix 1 to this document.

Contact:

Victor Callister Assistant Director (Environmental Enhancement), Built Environment 020 7332 3468 [email protected]

Stefania Pizzato, Technical Officer Department of the Built Environment 020 7332 3903 [email protected]

5. Before and After - Projects in 2013/2014

5.1 20 Fenchurch Street

Page 256 Page

The 20 Fenchurch Street project was required to protect the newly constructed 20FS building and to provide usable public realm on the busy Fenchurch Street through the introduction of seating and tree planting. The project cost £800,000 and was fully funded by the developer.

5.2 Fenchurch Plaza

Page 257 Page Fenchurch Plaza was

proposed by the developer

of 8 Fenchurch Place who

provided the funding of £750,000. The scheme puts trees, planting, seating and extra lighting into a vibrant but previously underused and empty public space

5.3 Holborn Circus

Page 258 Page Holborn Circus was the City’s most dangerous junction, it was improved to make it safer, and to reintroduce a sense of place. The circa £3Million award winning project was 90% funded by Transport for London and the rest by S.106. Monitoring of the junction shows that the new design is significantly safer.

5.4 John Carpenter Street

Page 259 Page John Carpenter Street was entirely funded by JP Morgan, the occupiers of 60 . Costing £950,000, the project creates a high quality public space from redundant carriageway, and introduces planting, seating and trees into a feature paved and now well used space. 5.5 St Andrews Holborn

Page 260 Page Funded by S.106 and Church funds, St Andrews Holborn re-landscaping joins a City open space with the Churchyard, to create a single space with a churchyard character. The design creates a fully accessible space with more seating and planting. 5.6 Queenhithe Mosaics

Page 261 Page The Queenhithe Mosaic was jointly funded through a contribution from 4C Hotel Group and the National Heritage Lottery Fund. Created by South Bank Mosaics, with local volunteers, the mosaic speaks of the history of the Thames and Queenhithe. 5.7 Silk Street

Page 262 Page The Silk Street enhancement project is part of the delivery of the Barbican Area Strategy. Funded by S.106 and City funding, the £1m project creates improved crossing facilities at the junction of Beech Street, and puts high quality street scape in to the street that the GSMD and Barbican use and main entrances. 6. Financial projections

To provide an indication of possible total spend should all projects proceed to This review has led to a fall in projected spend from £22.2 Million when last completion, Table 1 below shows a firmer projection of spend over the next reported. three years and provides an indicative figure for future years. For all projects Table 2 below shows the projected sources of funding for the programme. It that have not been approved for implementation (i.e. not approved at Gateway can be seen that most of the funding for the Department of the Built 5) the projected spend figures represent a best estimate of expenditure that will Environment Project Programme is provided externally, through planning become further refined as the project moves through the defined gateways as agreements related to developments, either through Section106 of the Town set out above. and Country Planning Act 1990, or through Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. These agreements are intended to offset the direct impact on the City of Table 1 – Projected financial spend by Gateway £’000s new developments, or to meet the specific needs or wishes of City businesses or developers entirely at their discretion. Previo FY FY FY FY Future us Total 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 years years Table 2 – Projected financial spend by source £’000s Gateway 0 3,399 161 1,584 4,366 6,651 80,770 96,931 Bridge s.106/s.2 Parking Gateway 1- TfL House/Ot Total Page 263 Page - - 15 495 1,275 19,627 21,412 78/CIL surplus 2 her CoL Gateway 3- 375 657 2,785 6,916 8,027 57,272 76,032 Gateway 4 63,687 29,160 1,198 2,886 96,931 Gateway 5- 0 9,150 10,213 11,679 15,182 4,981 7,977 59,181 Gateway 7 19,662 1,750 - - 21,412 1-2 Total 12,924 11,031 16,063 20,934 165,646 253,556 Gateway 26,959 64,758 11,145 49 80 76,032 3-4 Gateway 37,447 16,131 2,486 3,117 59,181 *The total for Gateway Zero projects includes projects that may never come forward 5-7 and gain approval or that may gain approval as a project in several years Total 185,554 58,186 3,733 6,083 253,556

Table 1 shows that the average projected annual spend on Approved DBE *The total for Gateway Zero projects includes projects that may never come forward projects from all sources from 2014 to 2017 is currently £21.3 Million per year. and gain approval or that may gain approval as a project in several years.

This reflects the scale of change in the built environment of the City, and Table 2 continues to show a reduced reliance on the City of London’s own relates in particular to major developments in the North and East of the City, funds for implementing environmental enhancement, transport and highways including £24 Million for the Aldgate project. This is based on programmes projects in the City. It also shows how successful the City has been at estimated by the project managers. This is being monitored to assess the attracting Transport for London funding. ‘optimism’ element of programme setting for the delivery of projects, which affects spending estimates as we go forward through to delivery of projects. The significant amount of TfL funding the City attracts comes from three main S.106 Funding has been directed towards the project, with the target of full areas: recovery

1. LIP funding- This funding is allocated to the City annually to fund the This ability to utilise external funding for projects means that the City’s public City's implementation of the the Mayor for London's Transportation realm is being renewed predominantly through the funding from developers Plan, as set out in the City's own approved Local Implementation Plan and TfL. Not only does this benefit the City in terms of environmental quality, (LIP). but the renewal of infrastructure also reduces the input of City funding for short and medium term maintenance. This external funding is also used to ensure 2. Major Projects Funding- This funding is allocated to London boroughs that the City moves forwards in a number of important areas, such as for major projects that deliver the Mayor's vision for major transport accessibility for those with mobility impairments, public space provision, climate and street environment enhancement projects. The City bids for this change adaptation, cycling growth, play, cultural activity and provision of funding in competition with London boroughs. improved welcome for City visitors.

3. Cycle Revolution Funding - This funding relates to the Mayor's programme of improving the cycling environment in London, with the aim of increasing the modal share of cycling as part of London's Transport Planning.

Page 264 Page

Where Table 2 shows direct City funding being utilised, it is either from the Surplus on the On-Street Parking Account (Parking Surplus), or from Bridge House. In the case of Parking Surplus it is mostly related to older projects such as Queen Street and the Riverside Walkway, where expenditure has already been incurred in previous years. Currently, £1.5 Million of Parking Surplus is being used as part of the funding for projects around the Barbican, as part of the implementation of the Barbican Area Strategy, which is match funded with Section 106 funding from the Heron Development. Small elements of Parking Surplus and other CoL funding have also been approved as ‘seed corn’ funding that help to move projects forward to attract funding from other sources, such as TfL, sponsorship or grant giving bodies. Bridge House funding of £2.16 Million is currently only used for the Staircase at London Bridge project, being implemented this and next financial year. Aldgate uses Parking Surplus to be used to underwrite the project funding, to enable commencement, but with Parking Surplus monies being re-paid as and when 7. Traffic Impacts of implementing Projects

Table 3 sets out the traffic impacts of construction of the projects currently on traffic in the City. This indicates that although there are some High Risk programmed for implementation, as assessed by the management team in the projects for traffic impact, such as those for the major streets and junctions, the Transport and Public realm division. This assessment is based on the following majority of these projects are expected to produce minimal traffic impact, as criteria: they are improving the City's environment away from the main traffic routes.

RED - High Risk of traffic impact. Particularly where this impact is on the The projects that have been assessed as having High or Medium Risk of traffic Strategic Road Network and/or is likely to require significant traffic impact are set out in Table 4. These projects will need to be the subject of management procedures to mitigate during construction, such as planned more detailed assessment, coordination and planning ahead of construction. diversions or traffic light control. The assessment of traffic impact set out in Tables 3 and 4 are being used to inform the coordination of projects in concert with planned utilities and AMBER - Medium Risk of some traffic impact on the Local Street Network, with construction activities, in what looks to be a coming period of increased minimal impact on the Strategic Road Network. Probably requiring some local development over the next few years. The intention is to co-ordinate activities traffic management management to facilitate construction, without impacting on and, where possible the timing of works on projects, with the aim of minimising general movement. disruption and keeping the City streets working. Page 265 Page

GREEN - Low or No Risk to traffic movement. May need some minimal The department is moving towards the use of GIS to help in mapping the management,such as pedestrian diversion. various activities and to assist in the identification of potential conflicts, which will need particularly close management and coordination. This information will To assist with managing the impact of the City's programme of Major project be made available to Members as part of programme planning as it develops. implementation Table 4 shows the assessed impact of the City's Major Projects

Table 3 – Project construction periods with traffic impacts (# indicates major project)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 20 FENCHURCH STREET 118 67 LOMBARD ST S278 8 72 FORE ST S.106 151 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 BURY COURT S.278 40 FENCHURCH PLACE S.278 86 GREEN CORRIDORS YEAR 3 18 HOLBORN CIRCUS AREA ENHANCEMENT 472 JOHN CARPENTER STREET 113 ST ANDREWS HOLBORN - LANDSCAPE S106 75 24-26 MINORIES S278 13 ALDGATE HIGHWAY & PUBLIC SQUARE 2,556 BARBICAN AREA STRATEGY - SILK ST 106 Page 266 Page MARINER HOUSE STREET SCENE S.106 83 MOOR LANE 165 5 BROADGATE S106 106 71 Queen Victoria Street S278 41 BARBICAN HIGHWALKS (BAS ST GILES) 38 NEW LUDGATE S.278 111 RWE MILLENNIUM BRIDGE AREA 162 RWE QUEENHITHE MOSAIC 29 5 BROADGATE S278 29 8-10 MOORGATE S.106 46 COURTESY CROSSING STUDY 552 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 NEW ST SQ H'WAY IMPS 152 MARK LANE S.106 76 M'SEX ST RAMPS S106 PH 1(PRE + POST EVN) 71 DRINKING FOUNTAINS (POST EVN) 9 201 B'GATE S.106 PH3 POST EVN 38 (AUSTIN FRIARS) BARTHOLOMEW

LANE/THROGMORTON ST S.106 113 30 S106 25

Page 267 Page BANK BYPASS WALKING ROUTES S.106 147 BARTS HOSPITAL 83 Bell Wharf Lane 30 LAURENCE POUNTNEY HILL 44 LOMBARD ST/CHANGE ALLEY 7 RWE LONDON BRIDGE STAIRCASE 324 Blackfriars Bridge Walkway 8 EASTERN CITY CLUSTER PUBLIC ART PH4 50 LIME ST CULLUM ST ENHANCEMENT WORKS

S106 99 RWE FISHMONGERS WHARF 64 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 28 Great Tower Street S278 4 PHILPOT LANE/EASTCHEAP CROSSING 105 MIDDLESEX ST AREA ENHANCEMENT S106 (PRE

& POST EVN) 135 40-45 CHANCERY LANE S.106 18 PLOUGH PLACE 96 Guildhall Enhancements 18 ECC - ST HELEN'S SQUARE 403 BEVIS MARKS S106 (POST

Page 268 Page EVN) 34 EASTERN CITY CLUSTER PHASE 2 248 LONG LANE (CROSSRAIL) 75 LEGIBLE LONDON SIGNAGE 234 THE MAYOR OF LONDON - VISION FOR CYCLING IN LONDON 457 60 St Mary Axe S278 & S106 159 1 NEW ST SQUARE S278 53 EASTERN CITY CLUSTER PHASE 1 249 EASTERN CITY CLUSTER PHASES 3-4 228 10 Trinity Square S278 150 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1 Angel Court S278 & S106 38 11-19 MONUMENT STREET 45 MITRE SQUARE 129 Alderman's House S278 45 ST MARY AT HILL CHURCHYARD 38 ST PAUL'S EXTERNAL LIGHTING 195 Creechurch Place (Mitre Square) s278 60 ST PAUL'S AREA SECURITY 15 LONDON WALL PLACE S278 333 Page 269 Page BLOOMBERG PLACE H'WY CHANGES S278 607 LONDON WALL/WOOD ST/ JUNCTION 45 BASINGHALL ST S.106 PH 2 (PRE + POST EVN) 80 CARTER LANE QTR PHASE 3 115 2-6 CANNON STREET 183 FENCHURCH STREET S106 600 120 FENCHURCH ST S106/S278 112 RWE GLOBE VIEW WALKWAY 150 LEADENHALL STREET 300 LIVERPOOL STREET CROSSRAIL 150 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 DBE PROJECT Construction CONSTRUCTION PERIODS FUTURE cost '000* WITH TRAFFIC IMPACTS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 MOORFIELDS AREA CROSSRAIL 210 52-54 Lime Street (Scalpel) s278 53 BEECH ST 375 FLEET STREET MAJOR PROJECT 936 BARTS CLOSE 1,084 HERON PLAZA HIGHWAY WORKS S.278 122 HERON PLAZA SECURITY S.278 300 L'HALL ST/ST MARY AXE JUNCTION IMPS 121 Page 270 Page FLEET BLDGS SECURITY S.278 1,194 FLEET BLDGS SECURITY S106 335 BANK JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS 900 MONUMENT STREET/LOWER THAMES STREET 20 51 LIME ST S106 42 MUSEUM OF LONDON GYRATORY 2,550

* Construction costs have been calculated as 15% of total project cost.

Area Strategies In order to set out and to manage the City’s priorities with regards to the Queen Street Area Strategy in 2003. In order to progress Area Strategies environmental enhancement and major transport projects, Environmental in manageable chunks, with local input, the City has been divided into 16 Enhancement Area Strategies have been developed. These give officers clear different districts for the purposes of ensuring that over time the whole City will direction in making funding applications to bodies like TfL and in negotiating be covered by an approved strategy. There are currently 11 approved Section 106 and Section 278 agreements with developers and businesses. strategies shown in Map 1. Environmental Enhancement Area Strategies were piloted with the approval of

Map 1 – Area Enhancement Strategies

Page 271 Page

The 11 approved strategies are: agreements related to new developments, or through TfL funding obtained through the Mayor’s Major Project Programme. In the past there has also been  Cheapside and Queen Street significant funding obtained from City businesses and developers unilateral  St. Pauls and Carter Lane undertakings. These are often delivering security and/or public realm  Riverside Walkway enhancements seen as essential by developers for their specific project. The  Fleet Street Courts and Lanes value that developers and property owners place on the quality of the City’s  Eastern City Cluster public realm is becoming clear through recent consultations on the revision to  Aldgate and Tower S.106 procedures and the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy.  Barbican The Area Strategies do not make planning policy but help implement the  Guildhall Citywide spatial planning policies for sustainable growth set out in the City’s  Bank adopted Core Strategy 2011 and the Local Plan 2013. The Area Strategies  Fenchurch Street & Monument provide a delivery plan for environmental enhancement in each district that also  Liverpool Street advances the objectives of the following City Corporation documents:  West Smithfield (Being Recommended for Approval)  City’s Road Danger Reduction Plan The strategies seek to ensure that the City’s public realm (mostly public  Open Spaces Strategy highway) keeps pace with the changing needs of the City community. The Page 272 Page  Biodiversity Action Plan Planning and Transportation Committee is responsible for approving Area  Climate Change Adaption Strategy Strategies, which are then referred to the Court of Common Council for final agreement. Each Area Strategy approved includes a number of specific  Health and Wellbeing Strategy projects considered necessary to meet the needs of the particular area. The  Noise Reduction Strategy projects are proposed following public consultation with stakeholders. The  Air Quality Enhancement Strategy projects are presented by the priority (High, Medium and Low) in which it is intended they will be implemented, subject to funding and developments The Court of Common Council approved strategies are each intended to have coming forward. Progress made on implementing these strategies is set out an implementation period of about 5 years. Within that time, experience has fully in Appendix 2. It should be noted that occasionally low priority projects are shown that all high priority, most medium priority and some lower priority implemented ahead of high and medium priority. This is due to developments projects will usually be implemented or commenced. adjacent to proposed projects, where the project becomes part of the planning obligation and the project becomes a high priority for the development, but remains a low priority for the strategy in general.

As well as project priority the strategies set out the estimated cost of each project, and a funding plan to set out where funding may be sought. The vast majority of funding used to implement the strategies is external to the City’s own funds, and is usually obtained through Section 106 agreements and S.278 Some of the more significant projects delivered through the implementation of Area Strategies over the years, have included:  Riverside Walkway  Fleet Street  Queen Street. The creation of a pedestrian priority quarter around Bow  Barbican Lane and Watling Street Carter Lane & St. Pauls. The relocation of the St.  Cheapside & Guildhall (combining the two strategies) Pauls Coach Park, pedestrianisation of Carter Lane and the creation of new gardens Riverside Walkway. Access and route enhancements and the Public consultations will be carried out on the Barbican, Riverside Walkway, creation of new links and spaces such as Grants Quay in the East and and Cheapside & Guildhall strategies this. year. A consultation on a revised Paul’s Walk in the West. Fleet Street Strategy will commence soon after.  Eastern Cluster. Ahead of the implementation of the public space enhancements an arts project to install world class sculptures on a rolling Area Strategies have been brought forward for consultation and adoption when programme with financial backing from local businesses has had great the pressure or need for change is thought to be of a scale that needs to be success. managed, through a phased implementation of several projects in one district.  Chancery Lane. A joint project with Camden and Westminster Councils for This needs to be matched with a realistic and achievable funding plan for the the widening and realignment of footways on Chancery Lane, and the strategy that will implement all high, most medium and some lower priority creation of public spaces in side streets projects within the intended five year life of the strategy. Some districts of the City have very little pressure from development, such as the Temple/

Page 273 Page Current projects moving to construction through the strategy process are: Whitefriars areas and, to date, it has not been necessary or affordable to bring strategies forward for the environmental enhancement of these areas. The  Aldgate. The creation of a new public space between the Sir John Cass introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy introduces flexibility for School and the St. Botolph Aldgate, with significant transportation allocating and prioritising available funding. This will mean that in future, areas improvements, including cycling enhancement and two way vehicle where there is little funding available locally, but where there is need, will be movement to normalise traffic presence in the area. able to be prioritised for improvement projects.

 Silk Street & Moor Lane. Significant improvements to a key junction at The spending on Area Strategies by financial year is set out in Table 5 and Silk Street/Beech Street and street improvements to increase the amount shown proportionally in Chart 1. and quality of pedestrian space and planting in both Silk Street and Moor Lane.

The current work programme for Environmental Enhancement Area Strategies is largely targeted at those areas with existing strategies, where the strategies have been in place for over 5 years, and where there is major change expected over the next five years. The following area strategies are currently being reviewed and renewed, and will be the subject of extensive public consultations as this process of review progresses: Table 6 – Projected financial spend by Area Strategy £’000s Chart 1 – Projected financial spend proportionally by Area Strategy

Previo FY FY FY FY Future us Totals 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 years years Percentage spent by area strategy Aldgate 935 2,552 4,703 7,941 3,000 8,676 27,807 Temple and Bank 311 467 779 622 2,985 12,598 17,762 Whitefriars 0.39% Barbican 217 447 909 953 40 5,099 7,665 Chancery West 569 121 445 600 95 37,958 39,788 Riverside Lane Smithfield Walk Aldgate Barbican Cheapside 569 121 445 525 20 37,958 39,638 9.86% 3.95% and Guildhall 4.29% 14.33% Eastern City St Paul's 231 100 272 2,709 2,046 3,055 8,413 Cluster strategy Fenchurch/M Bank 97 1,480 1,402 850 3,120 10,191 17,140 11.36% onument 9.16% Fleet Street 787 80 393 90 50 17,357 18,757 Liverpool Street Holborn 85 200 214 0 0 0 499 Liverpool 2.57% 231 303 1,012 1,083 786 1,568 4,983 Page 274 Page Street Cheapside and Riverside Fleet Street 689 306 1,823 1,634 112 3,753 8,317 Guildhall Walk Holborn 9.67% 20.51% Chancery Lane St Paul's 0.26% 2,156 52 30 732 1,283 17,784 22,037 0.50% strategy Fenchurch/ Temple and Monument 0 100 550 100 0 0 750 Whitefriars 8.83% West 0 0 75 155 2,525 16,370 19,125 Smithfield Total 6,308 6,225 12,663 18,637 15,967 134,609 194,007 Eastern City Cluster 4.34%

This indicated that overall the spend on implementing Environmental Enhancement Strategies has been spread across the City. Moving to the Community Infrastructure Levy as a source of funding to replace the more constrained Section 106 funding source will provide the opportunity to ensure

that allocation meets need and priority rather than being so linked to a

particular development. Appendix 1

Page 275 Page Programme schedule

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Riverside access Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 improvements strategy boundary Riverside connecting Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spaces strategy boundary Riverside greenery and Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy boundary enhancement Riverside walk enhancement area Vintry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy Montague house and Riverside walk enhancement Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dark house walk strategy Old billingsgate market Riverside walk enhancement Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 walkway 276 Page strategy Riverside walk enhancement Custom house Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy Riverside public art and Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 event strategy boundary Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river Riverside sport and play 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy boundary Riverside walk enhancement Bell wharf lane - phase 2 Vintry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy Cannon street under Riverside walk enhancement Dowgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bridge strategy 100 bishopsgate s278 Eastern city cluster Bishopsgate 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 Street lighting strategy Roads 0 2,500 0 0 350 675 1,475 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 2,500 Refurb sturgeon lighting Other items 0 386 0 12 374 0 0 386 0 0 0 386 386 units St paul's/ carter lane St paul's area strategy 0 0 0 area strategy Lighting vine street Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 80 80 80 80 80 Seething lane table Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 100 100 100 100 100 Seething lane garden Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 200 200 200 200 200 Aldgate bus station Aldgate area strategy Aldgate 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 improvements (private) Aldgate and Aldgate raised tables Aldgate area strategy 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 tower Aldgate review of Aldgate and Aldgate area strategy 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 signage tower

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Aldgate review of way Aldgate and Aldgate area strategy 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 finding tower America square Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 650 0 650 650 650 650 Langbourn, cornhill, Bank courts + lanes iii Bank area strategy 650 650 650 325 325 650 candlewick, walbrook Langbourn, Bank courts + lanes cornhill, Bank area strategy 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 phase ii candlewick, walbrook Cornhill Bank area strategy Cornhill 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 Old broad street + Cornhill, broad Bank area strategy 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 Cordwainer,

Bank 277 Page area access walbrook, Bank area strategy 0 750 0 750 750 500 250 750 improvements cornhill, langbourn, cheap Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank area tree planting Bank area strategy 0 100 0 100 100 50 50 100 cornhill, langbourn, cheap Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank area wayfinding Bank area strategy 0 250 0 250 250 200 50 250 cornhill, langbourn, cheap Riverside walk enhancement Blackfriars bridges Castle baynard 0 375 0 375 375 375 375 strategy Churchyard and alley Cheapside and guildhall area along the southern enhancement Cordwainer 250 250 250 250 250 250 façade of st mary at strategystrategy aldermary church Cheapside and guildhall area Whittington gardens enhancement Dowgate 100 100 100 100 100 100 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Distaff lane church enhancement Bread street 100 100 100 100 100 100 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Little trinity lane / st enhancement Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 james church strategystrategy Little trininty lane/ great Cheapside and guildhall area Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund trinity lane junction enhancement strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area 85 queen victoria street enhancement Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Cleary gardens enhancement Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area St peter cheap enhancement Cheap 100 100 100 100 100 100 churchyard strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Entrance to guildhall yard enhancement Cheap 100 100 100 100 100 100 by st lawrence lewry strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area

St olave 278 Page silver street enhancement Bassishaw 250 250 250 250 250 250 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Churchyard of st john enhancement Bassishaw 250 250 250 250 250 250 zachary strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area St anne and st agnes enhancement Aldersgate 750 750 750 750 750 750 churchyard strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Postman's park enhancement Aldersgate 250 250 250 250 250 250 strategystrategy Cloak lane (between Cheapside and guildhall area college hill and dowgate enhancement Dowgate 500 500 500 500 500 500 hill) strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area College hill enhancement Dowgate, vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Great st thomas apostle enhancement Castle baynard 750 750 750 750 750 750 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Garlick hill enhancement Vintry 750 750 750 750 750 750 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Little trinity lane enhancement Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 strategystrategy Friday street Cheapside and guildhall area Vintry 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund enhancement strategystrategy Queen street (between Cheapside and guildhall area cloak lane and skinners enhancement Vintry 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 lane) strategystrategy Queen street (between Cheapside and guildhall area queen victoria street and enhancement Cordwaiver 500 500 500 500 150 350 500 cheapside) strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Old jewry enhancement Cheap, walbrook 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Ironmonger lane enhancement Cheap 500 500 500 500 150 350 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area

Milk 279 Page street enhancement Cheap 100 100 100 100 50 50 100 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Wood street enhancement Bassishaw 750 750 750 750 375 375 750 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Gutter lane (part - north) enhancement Cheap 750 750 750 750 375 375 750 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Foster lane (part - north) enhancement Cheap 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Bassishaw, Coleman street enhancement 250 250 250 250 125 125 250 coleman street strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Love lane / aldermanbury enhancement Bassishaw 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Bassishaw, Wood street enhancement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 cripplegate strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area Bassishaw, Noble street enhancement 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 aldersgate strategystrategy Cheapside and guildhall area New change enhancement Bread street 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 500 1,500 2,000 strategystrategy Queen victoria street Cheapside and guildhall area Bread street, 750 750 750 750 375 375 750

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund enhancement cordwainer, strategystrategy vintry Bread street, Cheapside and guildhall area cordwainer, Cannon street enhancement 750 750 750 750 250 500 750 walbrook, strategystrategy candlewick Basinghall, Cheapside and guildhall area aldersgate, Gresham street enhancement 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 cheap, coleman strategystrategy st Cheapside and guildhall area Aldersgate, St paul's/ museum of enhancement farringdon within, 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 8,500 8,500 17,000 london gyratory strategystrategy cheap Cheapside and guildhall area Cheap, Greening cheapside enhancement 0 300 0 20 280 300 200 100 300 bassishaw Page 280 Page strategystrategy Haydon street Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 Jewry street Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 400 0 400 400 400 400 Little somerset street Aldgate area strategy Aldgate 0 750 0 750 750 750 750 Lombard street Bank area strategy Langbourn, 0 1,500 0 500 1,000 1,500 1,000 500 1,500 Mitre court Aldgate area strategy Aldgate 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Portsoken street Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Riverside lighting Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 400 0 400 400 400 400 strategy strategy boundary Riverside re-cladding of Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 275 0 275 275 275 275 walls strategy boundary Royal exchange Bank area strategy Cornhill 0 750 0 750 750 500 250 750 forecourt Royal exchange rear Bank area strategy Cornhill 0 350 0 350 350 250 100 350 Riverside walk enhancement St magnus house Bridge 750 750 0 0 0 0 750 750 750 0 0 0 750 strategy Riverside walk enhancement St magnus garden Bridge 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 strategy Vine street Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 580 0 580 580 580 580 Vine street and crescent Aldgate area strategy Tower 0 750 0 750 750 750 750 Riverside walk enhancement White lion hill Castle baynard 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 strategy Aldersgate street/ Barbican area strategy Aldersgate 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 goswell road Baltic street west Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 350 0 350 350 350 350 Barber surgeons gardens Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 150 0 150 150 150 150

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Cripplegate/alder Fann street Barbican area strategy 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 gate Golden lane Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 Golden lane estate city Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 walkway areas Carter lane qtr phase 3 St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 0 2,400 0 383 383 1,634 2,400 1,200 1,200 0 0 2,400 25-27 poultry s278 & Bank area strategy Cordwainer 0 400 200 200 400 200 200 400 s106 33 king william st s278 & Bank area strategy Bridge 0 360 360 360 360 360 s106 Legible london signage Highways and traffic City-wide 1,560 60 1,500 1,560 780 780 1,560 Bouverie & whitefriars Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 street Bride lane and court Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 Bridewell place Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 75 0 75 75 75 75 Chancery 281 Page house green Farringdon Chancery lane strategy 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 space without Farringdon Chancery lane gateways Chancery lane strategy 0 50 0 50 50 50 50 without Dorset rise Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 Hanging sword alley Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 Hutton street Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 Lombard lane Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 40 0 40 40 40 40 Pleydell street Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Salisbury square Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 St brides churchyard Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 80 0 80 80 80 80 Castle baynard, Temple lane Fleet street area strategy farringdon 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 without Eastern city cluster Eastern city cluster Lime street 0 1,519 0 100 1,419 1,519 1,519 0 0 0 1,519 phases 3-4 120 fenchurch st s278 & Fenchurch/monument Langbourn 0 748 100 648 748 748 748 s106 strategy Fenchurch/monument Bakers hall court Tower 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy Fenchurch/monument Cripplegate, Barbican city walkways 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy aldersgate Fenchurch/monument Botolph lane Bridge 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy Fenchurch/monument Dowgate, Cannon street 0 250 0 250 250 250 250 strategy candlewick,

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund walbrook Courts/lanes leading to Fenchurch/monument Lime street, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 leadenhall market strategy langbourn Dowgate, Courts/lanes off cannon Fenchurch/monument candlewick, 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 st strategy walbrook Bridge, Courts/lanes off Fenchurch/monument billingsgate, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 fenchurch street strategy tower, aldgate, langbourn Candlewick, Courts/lanes off Fenchurch/monument bridge, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 gracechurch st strategy langbourn East/west route from Fenchurch/monument Bridge, pudding lane to st 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy billingsgate dunstan’s 282 Page hill Fenchurch/monument Bridge, Eastcheap 0 2,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 strategy billingsgate Fish st hill/philpot Fenchurch/monument Bridge, 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 lane/lime street strategy langbourn Fenchurch/monument Lime street, Leadenhall street 0 2,000 0 100 1,000 900 2,000 2,000 2,000 strategy aldgate London bridge/king Fenchurch/monument Bridge, 0 250 0 250 250 250 250 william st/gracechurch st strategy candlewick Fenchurch/monument Lower st dunstan’s hill Billingsgate 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 strategy Fenchurch/monument Monument junction Candlewick 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 strategy Fenchurch/monument Pudding lane Bridge 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy St dunstan’s hill/mincing Fenchurch/monument Billingsgate, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 lane/fen court strategy tower, langbourn St dunstan’s in the east Fenchurch/monument Billingsgate 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 churchyard strategy Fenchurch/monument St mary at hill Billingsgate 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy Star alley st olave Fenchurch/monument Tower 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 churchyard strategy Ocean house s278 & Roads Dowgate 0 694 50 75 569 694 694 694 s106 River plate house s278 & Roads Coleman street 0 180 180 180 180 180

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund s106 Riverside walk enhancement Seal house s278 & s106 Bridge 0 357 357 357 357 357 strategy Riverside walk enhancement Sugar quay s278 & s106 Billingsgate 0 401 100 301 401 401 401 strategy Courtesy crossing study Road danger reduction City wide 106 3,680 0 40 66 134 3,440 3,680 0 3,680 0 3,680 City transportation 2020 Other items 2,000 500 500 1000 2,000 1000 1000 2,000 Cheapside and guildhall area Basinghall street ph 3 enhancement 500 500 500 500 500 500 strategystrategy Holborn area strategy Holborn strategy 0 0 0 52-54 lime street Lime street, Highways and traffic 350 40 50 250 10 350 350 350 (scalpel) s278 aldgate Creechurch place (mitre Highways and traffic Aldgate 400 20 70 300 10 400 400 400 square) s278 28 great 283 Page tower street Highways and traffic Tower 29 29 29 29 29 s278 9-13 aldgate (matrix) Highways and traffic Portsoken 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Farringdon Ludgate circus Fleet street area strategy within/castle 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 baynard Ludgate hill pedestrian Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 750 750 1,500 crossing Farringdon Accessibility West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 900 900 900 900 900 improvements without Farringdon Improved cycling network West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 250 250 250 250 250 without Farringdon Rotunda garden West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 without Farringdon Removal of ambulance West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 station without Farringdon Tree planting West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 100 50 50 100 100 100 without Farringdon Little britain (south) West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 800 800 800 800 800 without

Gateway zero projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Smithfield street - Farringdon general market public West smithfield strategy within, farringdon 800 800 800 800 800 space without

Page 284 Page

Gateway 1-2 projects S.106/S.2 Bridge Cost Latest Exp. pre 78 Parking House App'd by Est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future CIL/ TfL Meter Estates CCC Cost £000 £000 Total Funding £000 £000 £000 Years Other Reserve /City £000 £000 External fund 60 st mary axe s278 & Eastern City Cluster Aldgate 0 1,057 80 977 1,057 1,057 1,057 s106 1 angel court s278 & Bank Area Strategy Broad street 0 255 40 215 255 255 255 s106 farringdon within, Crossrail ralated projects West smithfield strategy farringdon 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 3,000 without farringdon Long lane (crossrail) West smithfield strategy without, 0 500 0 500 500 250 250 500 aldersgate farringdon Breams buildings Chancery lane strategy 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 without farringdon Cursitor street Chancery Lane Strategy within, farringdon 150 75 75 150 150 150 without

Page 285 Page Fenchurch/Monument 11-19 monument street bridge 0 300 0 0 15 200 85 0 300 300 300 Strategy St Paul's Area Security St Paul's Area Strategy Castle Baynard 0 16,000 100 900 15,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Gateway 1-2

Gateway 3-4 projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Cordwainer, Bloomberg place h'wy Highways and traffic walbrook, vintry, 250 4,044 44 123 87 80 1,960 1,750 4,044 4,044 0 0 4,044 changes s278 dowgate Riverside walk enhancement Rwe fishmongers wharf Bridge 424 424 0 0 100 324 424 124 300 424 strategy Bloomberg place public Bank area strategy Walbrook 71 71 37 5 29 71 71 71 realm Philpot lane/eastcheap Fenchurch/monument Bridge 700 700 0 10 690 700 700 700 crossing strategy Cheapside and guildhall area Guildhall enhancements enhancement Bassishaw 45 120 15 50 55 0 0 120 40 0 0 80 120 strategystrategy 10 trinity square s278 Highways and traffic Tower 1,000 20 20 60 900 1,000 1000 1,000 Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank junction Page 286 Page Bank area strategy cornhill, 6,000 0 45 275 202 570 4,908 6,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 6,000 improvements langbourn and cheap Fenchurch/monument St mary at hill churchyard Billingsgate 10 255 0 5 50 200 0 255 255 255 strategy Mitre square Eastern city cluster Aldgate 45 860 0 0 6 54 800 0 860 860 0 0 0 860 The mayor of london - vision for cycling in Cycle revolution All 3,045 3,045 45 190 2,810 3,045 3045 3,045 london Heron plaza security Highways and traffic Bishopsgate 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 500 1,500 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 s.278 Museum of london Roads Cheap 17,000 20 100 150 500 16,230 17,000 17,000 17,000 gyratory Castle baynard, bread street, Fleet street major project Fleet street area strategy farringdon within, 146 6,241 110 0 36 60 50 5,985 6,241 2,841 3,400 6,241 farringdon without Fenchurch/monument Langbourn, Fenchurch st s106 100 4,000 0 25 25 250 1,000 2,700 4,000 4,000 4,000 strategy aldgate Cheapside and guildhall area Bread street, 2-6 cannon street enhancement 1,220 1,220 0 17 25 1,178 1,220 1,220 1,220 vintry strategystrategy Bishopsgate, Liverpool street area portsoken, Liverpool st area strategy 57 57 57 57 57 57 enhancement coleman street, broad street

Gateway 3-4 projects S.106/s.2 Bridge Latest Cost Exp. Pre 78 Parking house est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards app'd by 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future Cil/ Tfl meter estates cost £000 £000 total funding ccc £000 £000 £000 £000 years Other reserve /city £000 external fund Farringdon Barts hospital West smithfield strategy 0 550 0 30 400 120 550 550 550 without Alderman's house s278 Highways and traffic Bishopsgate 300 20 20 20 240 300 300 300 Castle baynard, Plough place Chancery lane strategy farringdon 43 643 0 2 41 600 643 643 643 without Bishopsgate, Liverpool street crossrail Liverpool st area strategy 1,000 1,000 0 20 30 80 500 370 1,000 500 500 1,000 broad street Moorfields area crossrail Liverpool st area strategy Coleman street 1,000 1,400 0 0 74 128 1,198 1,400 900 500 1,400 Farringdon Fleet bldgs security Fleet street area strategy within/castke 100 7,957 0 70 80 10 7,797 7,957 7,957 0 0 7,957 s.278 baynard Monument street/lower Fenchurch/monument Bridge 0 136 0 136 136 136 136 thames street strategy Riverside walk enhancement

Rwe 287 Page globe view walkway Queenhithe 1,000 1,000 55 50 50 50 50 745 1,000 900 100 1,000 strategy Cripplegate, Beech st Barbican area strategy 48 2,500 1 28 0 20 40 2,411 2,500 2,451 49 2,500 aldersgate 40-45 chancery lane Farringdon Chancery lane strategy 15 121 0 15 15 91 121 121 121 s.106 without Farringdon Fleet bldgs security s106 Highways and traffic within/castle 2,230 2,230 0 0 125 125 100 1,880 2,230 2,230 0 0 2,230 baynard Farringdon 1 new st square s278 Highways and traffic within/castle 0 350 0 0 0 0 350 350 350 0 0 350 baynard Barts close West smithfield strategy Farringdon within 7,000 7,225 75 75 75 7,000 7,225 7,225 7,225 St paul's external lighting St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 0 1,300 50 25 75 1,150 1,300 1,300 0 1,300 Car park barrier General All 409 409 0 0 4 405 0 409 409 0 0 409 equipment Eastern city cluster Eastern city cluster Lime street 1,650 1,650 6 84 500 530 530 1,650 1,650 1,650 phase 2 Bevis marks s106 (post Eastern city cluster Aldgate 0 224 0 112 112 224 224 224 evn)

Gateway 5-7 projects S.106/S.2 Bridge Cost Latest Exp. pre 78 Parking House App'd by Est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future CIL/ TfL Meter Estates CCC Cost £000 £000 Total Funding £000 £000 £000 Years Other Reserve /City £000 £000 External fund M'sex st ramps s106 ph Liverpool st area strategy Portsoken 473 473 9 39 200 225 473 473 473 1(pre + post evn) Castle baynard, 30 old bailey s106 Fleet street area strategy bread street, 168 168 10 10 128 20 0 168 168 0 168 farringdon within Candlewick, Bank bypass walking Bank area strategy langbourn, 980 980 0 35 200 265 200 280 980 500 480 980 routes s.106 cornhill Middlesex st area Bishopsgate, enhancement s106 (pre Liverpool st area strategy 900 900 64 50 50 450 286 900 900 900 portsoken & post evn) L'hall st/st mary axe Highways and traffic Lime st/aldgate 705 805 100 250 25 0 0 430 805 805 0 0 805 junction imps Winchester hse, old Highways and traffic Broad st/cornhill 485 229 187 42 0 0 0 229 229 0 0 229 broad st sec.

London 288 Page wall place s278 Roads Barbican 2,217 2,217 277 277 1,663 2,217 2,217 2,217 Aldgate highway & public Portsoken, Aldgate area strategy 17,039 21,300 591 2,448 4,500 7,915 3,000 2,846 21,300 11,219 10,081 0 0 21,300 square aldgate, tower 5 broadgate s278 Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 191 191 73 118 0 0 0 191 191 0 0 191 Ecc - st helen's square Eastern city cluster Lime street 2,224 2,689 39 186 2,125 339 2,689 2,689 2,689 72 fore st s.106 Barbican area strategy Coleman st 1,007 1,007 9 60 50 888 1,007 1,007 1,007 Mark lane s.106 (phases Fenchurch/monument Tower, 48 508 43 8 20 30 30 377 508 508 508 1 and 2) strategy billingsgate Eastern city cluster Eastern city cluster Lime street 1,658 1,658 192 100 50 50 1,246 20 1,658 1,658 1,658 phase 1 (Austin friars) bartholomew Walbrook; broad Bank area strategy 455 750 74 331 230 115 0 750 455 295 0 0 750 lane/throgmorton st street s.106 Rwe millennium bridge Riverside walk enhancement Queenhithe 1,201 1,079 53 68 514 282 62 100 1,079 1,079 1,079 area strategy Lime street, Fenchurch/monument 51 lime st s106 aldgate, 282 282 18 27 10 100 127 282 282 282 strategy langbourne Heron plaza highway Highways and traffic Bishopsgate 810 810 0 0 70 340 400 810 810 0 0 810 works s.278 Farringdon Holborn circus area Highways and traffic without, castle 3,149 3,148 223 2,925 0 0 0 3,148 253 2,500 395 3,148 enhancement baynard New st sq h'way imps Highways and traffic Castle baynard 1,012 1,013 972 41 0 0 0 1,013 1,013 0 0 1,013

Gateway 5-7 projects S.106/S.2 Bridge Cost Latest Exp. pre 78 Parking House App'd by Est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future CIL/ TfL Meter Estates CCC Cost £000 £000 Total Funding £000 £000 £000 Years Other Reserve /City £000 £000 External fund Lime st cullum st Fenchurch/monument enhancement works Langbourn 659 659 10 270 15 20 30 314 659 659 659 strategy s106 Lombard st/change alley Bank area strategy Cornhill 50 45 45 45 45 45 Blackfriars bridge Riverside walk enhancement Castle baynard 50 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 50 50 50 walkway strategy Fenchurch/monument Laurence pountney hill Dowgate 290 290 0 0 290 0 0 0 290 0 290 290 strategy Riverside walk enhancement Bell wharf lane Vintry 200 200 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 200 200 strategy New ludgate s.278 Highways and traffic Farringdon within 738 738 106 34 300 298 0 738 738 0 0 738 St andrews holborn - Farringdon Holborn strategy 499 499 85 200 214 499 499 499 landscape s106 without Cheapside and guildhall area 71 queen victoria street enhancement Vintry 273 273 0 20 253 273 273 273

s278 289 Page strategystrategy Milton ct highway works Coleman st, Highways and traffic 1,612 1,264 687 577 0 0 0 1,264 1,264 0 0 1,264 s278 cripplegate Parking & enforcement Highways and traffic City-wide 419 423 317 106 0 0 0 423 0 0 423 423 plan phase 3 Cheapside and guildhall area Basinghall st s.106 ph 2 enhancement Bassishaw 463 530 433 13 84 530 530 530 (pre + post evn) strategystrategy Rwe steelyard passage Riverside walk enhancement Dowgate 226 206 178 28 206 206 206 ph2 s106 strategy Mariner house street Aldgate area strategy Tower 551 551 344 52 155 551 551 551 scene s.106 Green corridors year 3 Citywide City-wide 92 122 0 122 122 122 122 Coleman street, 8-10 moorgate s.106 Moorgate area strategy 307 307 18 11 220 58 307 307 307 broad street 24-26 minories s278 Aldgate area strategy Tower 86 86 0 52 28 6 86 86 86 Cheapside and guildhall area One coleman street s106 enhancement Colman street 305 129 121 8 0 0 0 129 129 0 0 129 strategystrategy Drinking fountains (post Aldgate area strategy City-wide 60 60 0 0 20 20 20 60 60 60 evn) 67 lombard st s278 Bank area strategy Langbourn, 51 51 0 51 51 51 0 0 51 Rwe london bridge Riverside walk enhancement Bridge 2,138 2,160 403 100 779 878 2,160 2,160 2,160 staircase strategy

Gateway 5-7 projects S.106/S.2 Bridge Cost Latest Exp. pre 78 Parking House App'd by Est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecast Total Name Programme Wards 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future CIL/ TfL Meter Estates CCC Cost £000 £000 Total Funding £000 £000 £000 Years Other Reserve /City £000 £000 External fund Carter lane quarter ph 2a St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 698 563 560 3 563 261 302 563 & 2b 5 broadgate s106 Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 708 708 25 40 643 708 708 708 Shoe lane phases 2-3 Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 816 816 667 0 149 0 816 408 0 408 0 816 Barbican area strategy - Cripplegate, Barbican area strategy 706 706 11 70 625 706 706 706 silk st coleman street St paul's churchyard Castle baynard, St paul's area strategy 1,774 1,774 1,546 24 30 174 1,774 339 1,435 1,774 enhancement bread street Moor lane Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 1,391 1,101 50 88 30 933 1,101 1,101 1,101 Fenchurch/monument Fenchurch place s.278 Tower 578 575 12 367 196 575 575 575 strategy 20 fenchurch st security Fenchurch/monument Bridge 787 787 14 773 787 787 787 s.278 strategy

Barbican 290 Page highwalks (bas Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 252 252 146 106 252 252 252 st giles) 201 b'gate s.106 ph3 Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 45 254 3 36 15 200 254 84 170 254 post evn Lime Eastern city cluster Eastern city cluster street/aldgate/cor 0 330 30 300 330 330 330 public art ph5 nhill Riverside walk enhancement Rwe queenhithe mosaic Queenhithe 140 190 0 60 130 190 140 50 190 strategy Bury court s.278 Highways and traffic Aldgate 300 268 0 252 16 0 0 268 268 0 0 268 Temple & whitefriars area John carpenter st s278 Castle baynard 191 750 0 100 550 100 750 750 750 strategy London wall/wood st/ Barbican area strategy Bassishaw 300 300 0 0 0 0 300 300 148 152 0 300 junction Highways management Information technology 345 275 95 88 92 0 0 275 0 0 0 275 275 system

Appendix 2

Page 291 Page

Area strategies projects

Aldgate Area Strategy Tfl / Latest S.106/s. Bridge Cost Exp. Pre cross Parking est'd 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Future Forecast 278/cil/o house Total Projects title Programme Ward app'd by 01/04/13 river meter cost £000 £000 £000 £000 years total ther estates/ funding ccc £000 £000 partners reserve £000 external city fund hip Lighting vine Aldgate area Tower 0 80 80 80 80 80 street strategy Seething lane Aldgate area Tower 0 100 100 100 100 100 table strategy Seething lane Aldgate area Tower 0 200 200 200 200 200 garden strategy Aldgate bus station Aldgate area Aldgate 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 improvements strategy (private) Aldgate raised Aldgate area Aldgate and 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 tables strategy tower Aldgate review Aldgate area Aldgate and 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 of signage strategy tower Page 292 Page Aldgate review Aldgate area Aldgate and 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 of way finding strategy tower America Aldgate area Tower 0 650 0 650 650 650 650 square strategy Aldgate area Haydon street Tower 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 strategy Aldgate area Jewry street Tower 0 400 0 400 400 400 400 strategy Little somerset Aldgate area Aldgate 0 750 0 750 750 750 750 street strategy Aldgate area Mitre court Aldgate 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 strategy Portsoken Aldgate area Tower 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 street strategy Aldgate area Vine street Tower 0 580 0 580 580 580 580 strategy Vine street and Aldgate area Tower 0 750 0 750 750 750 750 crescent strategy Aldgate Portsoken, Aldgate area highway & aldgate, 17,039 21,300 591 2,448 4,500 7,915 3,000 2,846 21,300 11,219 10,081 0 0 21,300 strategy public square tower Mariner house Aldgate area street scene Tower 551 551 344 52 155 551 551 551 strategy s.106

Aldgate Area Strategy Tfl / Latest S.106/s. Bridge Cost Exp. Pre cross Parking est'd 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Future Forecast 278/cil/o house Total Projects title Programme Ward app'd by 01/04/13 river meter cost £000 £000 £000 £000 years total ther estates/ funding ccc £000 £000 partners reserve £000 external city fund hip 24-26 minories Aldgate area Tower 86 86 0 52 28 6 86 86 86 s278 strategy Drinking Aldgate area fountains (post City-wide 60 60 0 0 20 20 20 60 60 60 strategy evn)

Bank Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/1 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 5 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Langbourn, cornhill, Page 293 Page Bank courts + lanes iii Bank area strategy 650 650 650 325 325 650 candlewick, walbrook Langbourn, Bank courts + lanes cornhill, Bank area strategy 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 phase ii candlewick, walbrook Cornhill Bank area strategy Cornhill 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 Old broad street + Cornhill, Bank area strategy 1,500 500 1,000 1,500 750 750 1,500 threadneedle broad street Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank area access Bank area strategy cornhill, 0 750 0 750 750 500 250 750 improvements langbourn, cheap Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank area tree planting Bank area strategy cornhill, 0 100 0 100 100 50 50 100 langbourn, cheap Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank area wayfinding Bank area strategy cornhill, 0 250 0 250 250 200 50 250 langbourn, cheap Lombard street Bank area strategy Langbourn, 0 1,500 0 500 1,000 1,500 1,000 500 1,500 Royal exchange Bank area strategy Cornhill 0 750 0 750 750 500 250 750

Bank Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/1 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 5 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund forecourt Royal exchange rear Bank area strategy Cornhill 0 350 0 350 350 250 100 350 25-27 poultry s278 & Bank area strategy Cordwainer 0 400 200 200 400 200 200 400 s106 33 king william st s278 Bank area strategy Bridge 0 360 360 360 360 360 & s106 1 angel court s278 & Bank area strategy Broad street 0 255 40 215 255 255 255 s106 Bloomberg place public Bank area strategy Walbrook 71 71 37 5 29 71 71 71 realm Cordwainer, walbrook, Bank junction Bank area strategy cornhill, 6,000 0 45 275 202 570 4,908 6,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 6,000 improvements langbourn and cheap Page 294 Page Candlewick, Bank bypass walking Bank area strategy langbourn, 980 980 0 35 200 265 200 280 980 500 480 980 routes s.106 cornhill (Austin friars) bartholomew Walbrook; Bank area strategy 455 750 74 331 230 115 0 750 455 295 0 0 750 lane/throgmorton st broad street s.106 Lombard st/change alley Bank area strategy Cornhill 50 45 45 45 45 45 67 lombard st s278 Bank area strategy Langbourn, 51 51 0 51 51 51 0 0 51

Barbican Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Aldersgate street/ Barbican area strategy Aldersgate 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 goswell road Baltic street west Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 350 0 350 350 350 350 Barber surgeons Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 gardens Fann street Barbican area strategy Cripplegate/aldergate 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Golden lane Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 Golden lane Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 estate city walkway areas Beech st Barbican area strategy Cripplegate, 48 2,500 1 28 0 20 40 2,411 2,500 2,451 49 2,500 aldersgate London Barbican area strategy Bassishaw 300 300 0 0 0 0 300 300 148 152 0 300

Page 295 Page wall/wood st/ junction 72 fore st s.106 Barbican area strategy Coleman st 1,007 1,007 9 60 50 888 1,007 1,007 1,007 Barbican area Barbican area strategy Cripplegate, coleman 706 706 11 70 625 706 706 706 strategy - silk st street Moor lane Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 1,391 1,101 50 88 30 933 1,101 1,101 1,101 Barbican Barbican area strategy Cripplegate 252 252 146 106 252 252 252 highwalks (bas st giles) Barbican area Barbican area strategy Cripplegate/aldergate 327 299 0 95 204 0 299 95 204 299 strategy

Chancery Lane Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Chancery house green Chancery lane strategy Farringdon without 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 space Chancery lane Chancery lane strategy Farringdon without 0 50 0 50 50 50 50 gateways Breams Chancery lane strategy Farringdon without 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 buildings Cursitor Chancery lane strategy street Castle baynard, Plough place Chancery lane strategy 43 643 0 2 41 600 643 643 643 farringdon without 40-45 chancery Chancery lane strategy Farringdon without 15 121 0 15 15 91 121 121 121

Page 296 Page lane s.106

Cheapside Area Strategy S.106/S Bridge Cost Latest Exp. .278 Parking Transp House Total App'd Est'd pre 2016/1 Foreca CIL/ Meter Name Programme Wards 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future ort for Estates Fundin by CCC Cost 01/04/1 7 £000 st Total Other Reserv £000 £000 £000 Years London /City g £000 £000 3 £000 Externa e fund l Churchyard and alley along the Cheapside and guildhall southern façade Cordwainer 250 250 250 250 250 250 area enhancement strategy of st mary at aldermary church Whittington Cheapside and guildhall Dowgate 100 100 100 100 100 100 gardens area enhancement strategy Distaff lane Cheapside and guildhall Bread street 100 100 100 100 100 100 church area enhancement strategy Little trinity lane / Cheapside and guildhall Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 st james church area enhancement strategy Little trininty lane/ Cheapside and guildhall great trinity lane Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 area enhancement strategy junction

Page 297 Page 85 queen victoria Cheapside and guildhall Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 street area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Cleary gardens Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 50 area enhancement strategy St peter cheap Cheapside and guildhall Cheap 100 100 100 100 100 100 churchyard area enhancement strategy Entrance to Cheapside and guildhall guildhall yard by Cheap 100 100 100 100 100 100 area enhancement strategy st lawrence lewry St olave silver Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw 250 250 250 250 250 250 street area enhancement strategy Churchyard of st Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw 250 250 250 250 250 250 john zachary area enhancement strategy St anne and st Cheapside and guildhall agnes Aldersgate 750 750 750 750 750 750 area enhancement strategy churchyard Cheapside and guildhall Postman's park Aldersgate 250 250 250 250 250 250 area enhancement strategy Cloak lane (between college Cheapside and guildhall Dowgate 500 500 500 500 500 500 hill and dowgate area enhancement strategy hill) Cheapside and guildhall College hill Dowgate, vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 area enhancement strategy Great st thomas Cheapside and guildhall Castle baynard 750 750 750 750 750 750 apostle area enhancement strategy

Cheapside Area Strategy S.106/S Bridge Cost Latest Exp. .278 Parking Transp House Total App'd Est'd pre 2016/1 Foreca CIL/ Meter Name Programme Wards 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future ort for Estates Fundin by CCC Cost 01/04/1 7 £000 st Total Other Reserv £000 £000 £000 Years London /City g £000 £000 3 £000 Externa e fund l Cheapside and guildhall Garlick hill Vintry 750 750 750 750 750 750 area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Little trinity lane Vintry 500 500 500 500 500 500 area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Friday street Vintry 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 area enhancement strategy Queen street (between cloak Cheapside and guildhall Vintry 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 lane and area enhancement strategy skinners lane) Queen street (between queen Cheapside and guildhall Cordwaiver 500 500 500 500 150 350 500

Page 298 Page victoria street area enhancement strategy and cheapside) Cheapside and guildhall Cheap, Old jewry 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 area enhancement strategy walbrook Cheapside and guildhall Ironmonger lane Cheap 500 500 500 500 150 350 500 area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Milk street Cheap 100 100 100 100 50 50 100 area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Wood street Bassishaw 750 750 750 750 375 375 750 area enhancement strategy Gutter lane (part Cheapside and guildhall Cheap 750 750 750 750 375 375 750 - north) area enhancement strategy Foster lane (part Cheapside and guildhall Cheap 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 - north) area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw, Coleman street 250 250 250 250 125 125 250 area enhancement strategy coleman street Love lane / Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 aldermanbury area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw, Wood street 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 area enhancement strategy cripplegate Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw, Noble street 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 area enhancement strategy aldersgate Cheapside and guildhall New change Bread street 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 500 1,500 2,000 area enhancement strategy

Cheapside Area Strategy S.106/S Bridge Cost Latest Exp. .278 Parking Transp House Total App'd Est'd pre 2016/1 Foreca CIL/ Meter Name Programme Wards 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future ort for Estates Fundin by CCC Cost 01/04/1 7 £000 st Total Other Reserv £000 £000 £000 Years London /City g £000 £000 3 £000 Externa e fund l Bread street, Queen victoria Cheapside and guildhall cordwainer, 750 750 750 750 375 375 750 street area enhancement strategy vintry Bread street, Cheapside and guildhall cordwainer, Cannon street 750 750 750 750 250 500 750 area enhancement strategy walbrook, candlewick Basinghall, Cheapside and guildhall aldersgate, Gresham street 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 area enhancement strategy cheap, coleman st St paul's/ Aldersgate, Cheapside and guildhall

Page 299 Page museum of farringdon 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 8,500 8,500 17,000 area enhancement strategy london gyratory within, cheap Greening Cheapside and guildhall Cheap, 0 300 0 20 280 300 200 100 300 cheapside area enhancement strategy bassishaw Basinghall street Cheapside and guildhall 500 500 500 500 500 500 ph 3 area enhancement strategy Guildhall Cheapside and guildhall Bassishaw 45 120 15 50 55 0 0 120 40 0 0 80 120 enhancements area enhancement strategy Cheapside and guildhall Bread street, 2-6 cannon street 1,220 1,220 0 17 25 1,178 1,220 1,220 1,220 area enhancement strategy vintry 71 queen victoria Cheapside and guildhall Vintry 273 273 0 20 253 273 273 273 street s278 area enhancement strategy Basinghall st Cheapside and guildhall s.106 ph 2 (pre + Bassishaw 463 530 433 13 84 530 530 530 area enhancement strategy post evn) One coleman Cheapside and guildhall Colman street 305 129 121 8 0 0 0 129 129 0 0 129 street s106 area enhancement strategy Cheap, bread Cheapside area Cheapside and guildhall st, bassishaw, strategy review 66 66 0 30 36 66 66 66 area enhancement strategy cordwainer, s106 walbrook

Eastern City Cluster S.106/S. Bridge Cost Latest Exp. pre 278 Transpo Parking House App'd Est'd 2015/16 2016/17 Forecas Total Name Programme Wards 01/04/13 2013/14 2014/15 Future CIL/ rt for Meter Estates by CCC Cost £000 £000 t Total Funding £000 £000 £000 Years Other London Reserve /City £000 £000 External fund 100 Bishopsgate Eastern city cluster Bishopsgate 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 s278 Eastern city cluster phases 3- Eastern city cluster Lime street 0 1,519 0 100 1,419 1,519 1,519 0 0 0 1,519 4 Mitre square Eastern city cluster Aldgate 45 860 0 0 6 54 800 0 860 860 0 0 0 860 Ecc - st helen's Eastern city cluster Lime Street 2,224 2,689 39 186 2,125 339 2,689 2,689 2,689 square Eastern city Eastern city cluster Lime Street 1,658 1,658 192 100 50 50 1,246 20 1,658 1,658 1,658 cluster phase 1 Eastern city Lime Street cluster public art Eastern city cluster 0 330 30 300 330 330 330 /aldgate/cornhill ph5

Page 300 Page

Fenchurch/Monument Streategy S.106/S Bridge Latest Exp. .278 Parking Transp House Cost App'd by Est'd pre 2014/ 2015/16 2016/17 Foreca CIL/ Meter Total Name Programme Wards 2013/14 Future ort for Estates CCC £000 Cost 01/04/1 15 £000 £000 st Total Other Reserv Funding £000 Years London /City £000 3 £000 £000 Externa e fund l 11-19 Fenchurch/monument Bridge 0 300 0 0 15 200 85 0 300 300 300 Monument street strategy 120 Fenchurch Fenchurch/Monument Langbourn 0 748 100 648 748 748 748 st s278 & s106 Strategy 20 Fenchurch st Fenchurch/Monument Bridge 787 787 14 773 787 787 787 security s.278 Strategy Fenchurch/Monument Bakers hall court Tower 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Strategy Barbican city Fenchurch/Monument Cripplegate, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 walkways Strategy Aldersgate Fenchurch/Monument Botolph lane Bridge 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Strategy Dowgate, Fenchurch/Monument Cannon street Candlewick, 0 250 0 250 250 250 250 Strategy Walbrook

Fenchurch/Monument Streategy S.106/S Bridge Latest Exp. .278 Parking Transp House Cost App'd by Est'd pre 2014/ 2015/16 2016/17 Foreca CIL/ Meter Total Name Programme Wards 2013/14 Future ort for Estates CCC £000 Cost 01/04/1 15 £000 £000 st Total Other Reserv Funding £000 Years London /City £000 3 £000 £000 Externa e fund l Courts/lanes leading to Fenchurch/Monument Lime Street, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 leadenhall Strategy Langbourn market Dowgate, Courts/lanes off Fenchurch/Monument Candlewick, 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 cannon st Strategy Walbrook Bridge, Billingsgate, Courts/lanes off Fenchurch/Monument Tower, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 fenchurch street Strategy Aldgate, langbourn Candlewick, Courts/lanes off Fenchurch/Monument bridge, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Page 301 Page gracechurch st Strategy langbourn East/west route from pudding Fenchurch/Monument Bridge, 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 lane to st Strategy billingsgate dunstan’s hill Fenchurch/Monument Bridge, Eastcheap 0 2,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Strategy Billingsgate Fenchurch place Fenchurch/Monument Tower 578 575 12 367 196 575 575 575 s.278 Strategy Fenchurch st Fenchurch/Monument Langbourn, 100 4,000 0 25 25 250 1,000 2,700 4,000 4,000 4,000 s106 Strategy Aldgate Fish st Fenchurch/Monument Bridge, hill/philpot 0 500 0 500 500 500 500 Strategy Langbourn lane/lime street

Fleet Street Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Bouverie & whitefriars Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 200 0 200 200 200 200 street Bride lane and Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 150 0 150 150 150 150

Fleet Street Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund court Bridewell place Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 75 0 75 75 75 75 Dorset rise Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 Hanging sword Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 alley Hutton street Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 Lombard lane Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 40 0 40 40 40 40 Pleydell street Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 Salisbury Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 100 0 100 100 100 100 square St brides Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 0 80 0 80 80 80 80 churchyard Castle baynard, Temple lane Fleet street area strategy 0 60 0 60 60 60 60 farringdon without Farringdon Page 302 Page Ludgate circus Fleet street area strategy 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,000 within/castle baynard Ludgate hill pedestrian Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 750 750 1,500 crossing Castle baynard, bread Fleet street street, farringdon Fleet street area strategy 146 6,241 110 0 36 60 50 5,985 6,241 2,841 3,400 6,241 major project within, farringdon without Fleet bldgs Farringdon Fleet street area strategy 100 7,957 0 70 80 10 7,797 7,957 7,957 0 0 7,957 security s.278 within/castke baynard Castle baynard, bread 30 old bailey Fleet street area strategy street, farringdon 168 168 10 10 128 20 0 168 168 0 168 s106 within Shoe lane Fleet street area strategy Castle baynard 816 816 667 0 149 0 816 408 0 408 0 816 phases 2-3 Castle baynard, bread Fleet street street, farringdon Fleet street area strategy 174 174 0 110 64 174 174 174 area strategy within, farringdon without

Holborn Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund St andrews Farringdon holborn - Holborn strategy 499 580 85 200 214 499 499 499 without landscape s106

Liverpool Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Liverpool Bishopsgate, broad street Liverpool st area strategy 1,000 1,000 0 20 30 80 500 370 1,000 500 500 1,000 street crossrail Moorfields Liverpool st area strategy Coleman street 1,000 1,400 0 0 74 128 1,198 1,400 900 500 1,400 Page 303 Page area crossrail Liverpool Bishopsgate, portsoken, street area Liverpool st area strategy coleman street, broad 57 57 57 57 57 57 enhancement street M'sex st ramps s106 Liverpool st area strategy Portsoken 473 473 9 39 200 225 473 473 473 ph 1(pre + post evn) Middlesex st area enhancement Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate, portsoken 900 900 64 50 50 450 286 900 900 900 s106 (pre & post evn) 5 broadgate Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 191 191 73 118 0 0 0 191 191 0 0 191 s278 5 broadgate Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 708 708 25 40 643 708 708 708 s106 201 b'gate s.106 ph3 Liverpool st area strategy Bishopsgate 45 254 3 36 15 200 254 84 170 254 post evn

Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy Bridge Cost Lates S.106/S.27 Exp. Parkin House App' t 8 Transpo Total pre 2014/ 2016/1 Futur Foreca g Meter Estate Name Programme Wards d by Est'd 2013/1 2015/1 CIL/ rt for Fundin 01/04/1 15 7 £000 e st Total Reserv s CCC Cost 4 £000 6 £000 Other London g 3 £000 £000 Years e /City £000 £000 External fund Riverside access Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 improvements strategy Boundary Riverside Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river connecting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy Boundary spaces Riverside greenery and Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 biodiversity strategy Boundary enhancement Southwark Riverside walk enhancement Vintry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bridge area strategy Montague house Page 304 Page Riverside walk enhancement and dark house Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy walk Old billingsgate Riverside walk enhancement Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 market walkway strategy Riverside walk enhancement Custom house Billingsgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategy Riverside public Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 art and event strategy Boundary Riverside sport Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and play strategy Boundary Bell wharf lane - Riverside walk enhancement Vintry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 phase 2 strategy Cannon street Riverside walk enhancement Dowgate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 under bridge strategy Blackfriars Riverside walk enhancement Castle Baynard 0 375 0 375 375 375 375 bridges strategy Riverside Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 400 0 400 400 400 400 lighting strategy strategy Boundary Riverside re- Riverside walk enhancement Wards with river 0 275 0 275 275 275 275 cladding of walls strategy Boundary St magnus Riverside walk enhancement Bridge 0 150 0 150 150 150 150 garden strategy Riverside walk enhancement White lion hill Castle Baynard 0 300 0 300 300 300 300 strategy Seal house s278 Riverside walk enhancement Bridge 0 357 357 357 357 357 & s106 strategy

Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy Bridge Cost Lates S.106/S.27 Exp. Parkin House App' t 8 Transpo Total pre 2014/ 2016/1 Futur Foreca g Meter Estate Name Programme Wards d by Est'd 2013/1 2015/1 CIL/ rt for Fundin 01/04/1 15 7 £000 e st Total Reserv s CCC Cost 4 £000 6 £000 Other London g 3 £000 £000 Years e /City £000 £000 External fund Sugar quay s278 Riverside walk enhancement Billingsgate 0 401 100 301 401 401 401 & s106 strategy Rwe Riverside walk enhancement fishmongers Bridge 424 424 0 0 100 324 424 124 300 424 strategy wharf Rwe globe view Riverside walk enhancement Queenhithe 1,000 1,000 55 50 50 50 50 745 700 900 100 1,000 walkway strategy Rwe millennium Riverside walk enhancement Queenhithe 1,201 1,079 53 68 514 282 62 100 1,079 1,079 1,079 bridge area strategy Blackfriars Riverside walk enhancement Castle Baynard 50 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 50 50 50 bridge walkway strategy Riverside walk enhancement Bell wharf lane Vintry 200 200 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 200 200 strategy

Page 305 Page Rwe steelyard Riverside walk enhancement passage ph2 Dowgate 226 206 178 28 206 206 206 strategy s106 Rwe london Riverside walk enhancement Bridge 2,138 2,160 403 100 779 878 2,160 2,160 2,160 bridge staircase strategy Rwe queenhithe Riverside walk enhancement Queenhithe 140 190 0 60 130 190 140 50 190 mosaic strategy

St Paul’s Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2014/ 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 15 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 £000 External £000 fund St paul's/ carter lane St paul's area strategy 0 0 0 area strategy Carter lane qtr phase 3 St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 0 2,400 0 383 383 1,634 2,400 1,200 1,200 0 0 2,400 St paul's area security St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 0 16,000 100 900 15,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 gateway 1-2 St paul's external St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 0 1,300 50 25 75 1,150 1,300 1,300 0 1,300 lighting Carter lane quarter ph St paul's area strategy Castle baynard 698 563 560 3 563 261 302 563 2a & 2b St paul's churchyard Castle baynard, St paul's area strategy 1,774 1,774 1,546 24 30 174 1,774 339 1,435 1,774 enhancement bread street

Temple and Whitefriars Area Strategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/1 Futur Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/1 2014/1 2015/1 for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 7 £000 e Total Other Funding CCC 4 £000 5 £000 6 £000 London Reserve /City £000 £000 Years External £000 fund John carpenter st Temple & whitefriars area Castle 191 750 0 100 550 100 750 750 750 s278 strategy Baynard

West SmithfieldsStrategy Cost Bridge Latest Exp. S.106/S.278 App'd Transport Parking House Est'd pre 2016/17 Forecast CIL/ Total Name Programme Wards by 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Future for Meter Estates Cost 01/04/13 £000 Total Other Funding CCC £000 £000 £000 Years London Reserve /City £000 £000 External £000 fund Crossrail ralated Farringdon within, Page 306 Page projects West smithfield strategy 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 3,000 farringdon without

Accessibility Farringdon within, West smithfield strategy 900 900 900 900 900 improvements farringdon without Improved cycling Farringdon within, West smithfield strategy 250 250 250 250 250 network farringdon without Farringdon within, Rotunda garden West smithfield strategy 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 farringdon without Removal of Farringdon within, West smithfield strategy 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 ambulance station farringdon without Farringdon within, Tree planting West smithfield strategy 100 50 50 100 100 100 farringdon without Little britain Farringdon within, West smithfield strategy 800 800 800 800 800 (south) farringdon without Smithfield street - Farringdon within, general market West smithfield strategy 800 800 800 800 800 farringdon without public space Long lane Farringdon without, West smithfield strategy 0 500 0 500 500 250 250 500 (crossrail) aldersgate Barts hospital West smithfield strategy Farringdon without 0 550 0 30 400 120 550 550 550

Barts close West smithfield strategy Farringdon within 7,000 7,225 75 75 75 7,000 7,225 7,225 7,225

Agenda Item 9

Committee(s) Dated:

Planning & Transportation 24th February 2015

Subject: Public Millennium Bridge Inclinator Options Paper

Report of: For Decision City Surveyor

Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Members with options to decide on the future of the Millennium Bridge Inclinator. Members are of the view that the inclinator is not reliable and the City should be doing more to ensure that it is available to the general public as much as practically possible.

The average availability of the inclinator over a 22 month period shows that it has been working for 96% of the time which is in line with the majority of other public lifts. However, the data for the inclinator shows several periods of time when, for instance in April 2014 the availability of the inclinator was down to 39% for a month. I believe these periods of down time have changed the Members perception of the Inclinator.

This report provides the following three options:

 Option A – Keep the inclinator and do nothing. Available data for the inclinator highlights the performance of the inclinator is in line with other public lifts.

 Option B – Keep the inclinator, but increase store of replacement spare parts. Parts for the inclinator are only being manufactured outside the UK. Approval is sought to purchase a list of replaceable spares to be held by the City to decrease the down time of the inclinator when a fault is reported. A one off cost of £20k is required for the initial purchase of these critical spares from the Thames Bridges Repairs and Maintenance & Major Work Fund. Future replacement parts will be funded through the Building Repairs & Maintenance budget.

 Option C – Replace the inclinator with an alternative. Commission a feasibility survey via the Project Sub Committee to look at replacing the inclinator with an alternative which is in line with the original planning permissions for the Millennium Bridge.

Page 307

Recommendation(s)

Members are asked to:

 Note the content of the report.  Approve that the City Surveyor take forward Option B with our Lift Contractor.  Approve the £20k requested for the Critical list of spare parts required for Option B from the Thames Bridges Repairs and Maintenance & Major Works Fund.

Main Report

Background

1. The provision of the inclinator was part of the planning conditions for the Millennium Bridge in order to secure disabled access. 2. The original inclinator was manufactured by the Italian company Maspero Elevatori and had a persistent history of breakdowns. 3. At the Planning and Transportation Committee on the 14th October 2010 the City Surveyor provided a report requesting additional fees (£85,000) for a report to evaluate options to improve the performance of the inclinator. 4. Options included: a. Do nothing b. Remedial Work to existing c. Replace with a new inclinator d. Replace with a conventional lift 5. The Policy & Resources committee reduced the level of additional fees agreed to £20,000, hence only options b and c were considered as part of the evaluation report. 6. This committee agreed to complete option c and the new inclinator was awarded its certificate of practical completion on the 25th May 2012. 7. There have been three major breakdowns since the end of the defects period up to November 2013, when these were reported to this Committee. Since then there have been two major breakdowns both of which have required replacement rollers being manufactured and dispatched from Germany. 8. The inclinator is the only one of its kind in the UK and there are no inclinator manufacturers based within the UK. 9. Due to the incline of the inclinator each breakdown is classed under the working at height health and safety regulations, which requires at least two men to work at one time plus sufficient light which due to the inclinator’s outside location means enough natural daylight which adds to the amount of time it is out of operation.

Page 308

Current Position

10. Since the new inclinator was installed in May 2012, it has been used 100,700 times which equates to 3,146 journeys per month on average 100 times per day.

11. The breakdowns for inclinator relate to general wear and tear which isn’t helped by the environment within which it is located i.e., in the open air and next to the river.

12. At this committee on the 13th January 2015, Members asked the City Surveyor for an options paper on the inclinator and whether it was fit for purpose as there is a perception by Members that the Inclinator is not as reliable as it should be.

13. This report provides Members with those options and requests a decision on which option should be taken forward.

Options

Option A – Retain Inclinator and do nothing

14. The statistics provided in Appendix 1, demonstrate that the inclinator performs well and in line with all of the other public lifts and escalators.

Option B – Retain Inclinator but improve the availability of spare parts to reduce down time

15. It is clear that one of the key elements leading to a longer downtime on the inclinator compared to the other public lifts is the lack of spare parts available in the UK.

16. The manufacturer, Huetter, who are based in Germany, have confirmed that all parts for the inclinator are made to order and there are no off the shelf parts available, hence why we currently have to wait for parts to be sent from Germany.

17. We currently have no direct relationship with Huetter, the manufacturer, as the majority of correspondence with them has been through our Lift contractor, Apex. It is therefore essential we improve our relationship with them to ensure that we achieve the best quality service possible.

18. To try and alleviate the need to order parts from Germany in coordination with our Lift contractor we have sought alternative UK manufactured parts to install in the inclinator. Unfortunately these parts are incompatible, hence the situation of requiring a stock of critical spare parts.

Page 309 19. I have compiled an extensive list of replaceable spare parts and it is proposed that we purchase these replacement parts which would total in the region of £20k. These parts would remain under the ownership and control of the City and be centrally stored at the Guildhall which would allow easy access for our Lift contractor to access when required. The parts would be replaced as used and be funded out of the BR&M budget. Members are asked to approve the initial capital investment of £20k to be funded from the Thames Bridges Repairs and Maintenance & Major Works Fund. This will significantly reduce the downtime of the inclinator when a repair is required.

20. The parts would be ordered through our Lift contractor to ensure compliance with procurement regulations.

21. In addition to the replaceable spare parts, I am proposing that we increase the level of service cover provided by our Lift contractor, this increase in service will ensure that dedicated engineers will be available at all times to respond quickly to a breakdown. Whilst access to the inclinator can only take place in natural daylight, the expectation is that the engineers would respond in darkness to ensure that the inclinator is left in a safe state before being repaired the following morning. This additional service will come at an annual cost of £10k for the City which will be funded through the BR&M budget; a similar service has recently been introduced for the lifts at the Barbican Centre.

22. In addition to the above the lift engineer within my team will ensure the improvement in the quality of the Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) carried out on the inclinator. This will involve ensuring the scheduled of PPM works due at each visit is fully and correctly carried out which will form part of a reoccurring quality control maintenance programme.

23. It must be noted that whilst the above will assist with reducing the down time of the inclinator when it needs repairing, it will not completely exclude the potential of future breakdowns that cannot be fixed within a short length of time. Option B will allow us to do all we can to mitigate the length of down time.

24. This is our recommended option.

Option C – Replace the Inclinator

25. The City Surveyor would commission a project to look at the feasibility of replacing the inclinator with an alternative product such as a lift, travelator or ramp for example. Any change would be subject to planning permission. 26. The inclinator for the Millennium Bridge was proposed to provide access for people with disabilities without impinging on the view of St. Paul’s from the Thames and the bridge. A conventional lift would have an impact on these views. 27. The current inclinator has only been in situ for 2 years and 9 months; there would be a risk to the City’s reputation if this option was chosen. The original

Page 310 inclinator was in place for a more significant period of time circa 10 years before the decision was taken to replace it. 28. Any solution for the replacement of the inclinator will take time to develop and implement. Option 2 would probably be needed in the interim period to provide better support. 29. Without a doubt this option would be the most costly. Funding would have to be sought and justified from constrained overall capital resources. Initial fees would have to be sought for the feasibility study followed by the actual costs to provide the suggested solution. 30. This project would have to be reported and agreed via the Gateway Process with value for money consideration and the need for full committee approvals.

Corporate & Strategic Implications

31. The maintenance of the City’s operational property portfolio sets out to deliver two of the key objectives in the Corporate Property Asset Management Strategy 2012-16.

 SO.1 -Operational assets remain in a good, safe and statutory compliant condition.

 SO.2 -Operational assets are fit for purpose and meet service delivery needs

Conclusion

32. The City Surveyor is presenting three options to Members to approve one in relation to the future of the Millennium Bridge Inclinator, those options are:

Option A – Keep the inclinator and do nothing Option B – Keep the inclinator but increase store of spare parts Option C – Replace the inclinator with alternative

33. Option B is the recommendation of the City Surveyor.

Appendices

 Appendix 1 – Graphs demonstrating inclinator availability compared to the other public lifts  Appendix 2 – List of Replaceable Spares

Alison Hurley Assistant Director – Corporate Property Facilities Management City Surveyor’s Department

T: 020 7332 1069 E: [email protected]

Page 311 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 312 120 Public Lifts and Escalators - Downtime Appendix 1

100

80

60

40

20

0 41365 41395 41426 41456 41487 41518 41548 41579 41609 41640 41671 41699 41730 41760 41791 41821 41852 41883 41913 41944 41974 42005

Millennium Bridge Inclinator London Wall Western Pavilion Escalator (Down) Moorgate Escalator (Up)

Page 313 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 314 102 Average Availability of Public Lifts and Escalators April 2013 to January 2015 Appendix 1 100

98

96

94 Page 315 Page

92

90 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Agenda Item 13 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 321 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 335 This page is intentionally left blank Document is Restricted

Page 337 This page is intentionally left blank