planning report PDU/3015/02 30 January 2013 52-54 Lime Street & 21-26 Leadenhall, 27 & 27A Leadenhall Street and 34-35 Leadenhall Street and 4-5 Billiter Street in the City of London planning application no. 12/00870/FULEIA Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with a 39-storey (190 metre) office-led mixed use development The applicant The applicant is W.R. Berkley Corporation and the architect is Kohn Pedersen Fox Strategic issues The provision of new high quality office floorspace in the heart of the City of London is strongly supported. Strategic issues relating to tall buildings, views and World Heritage Sites, urban and inclusive design, climate change and transport have been satisfactorily resolved. The Corporation’s decision In this instance the Corporation of London has resolved to grant permission. Recommendation That the Corporation of London be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 1 October 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from the Corporation of London notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: 1C: Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the page 1 following descriptions— (b) the building is more than 150 metres high and is in the City of London 2 On 7 November 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/3015/01, and subsequently advised the Corporation of London that. the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 60 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 15 January 2013 the Corporation of London decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 18 January 2013 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct the Corporation of London under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to the Corporation of London under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application. The Mayor has until 31 January 2013 to notify the Corporation of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. 5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 6 At the consultation stage the Corporation of London was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 60 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph of that report could address these deficiencies: World Heritage Sites and listed buildings: In order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 7.10, the applicant should provide an explicit assessment of the impact of the proposal on the WHS, clearly linked to its Outstanding Universal Value, integrity, authenticity and significance. Inclusive design: the entrance and lift arrangements require further explanation in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 7.2. Climate change: further information is required before the carbon savings can be verified. The shortfall in on-site CO2 savings should be met off-site, in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 5.2. Transport: cycle and car parking provision complies with London Plan policies 6.9 and 6.13. Further information and conditions are required in order to ensure compliance with London Plan policies 6.3, 6.7, 6.14 and 8.3. page 2 World Heritage Site 7 In response to the Mayor’s initial comments the applicant has provided a statement assessing the potential impacts of the proposed development on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London WHS, based on the methodology of the London World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings SPG. This concludes that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the Tower of London WHS and is compliant with the GLA’s London Plan policy 7.10. 8 English Heritage note that the City’s eastern cluster is already visible from within the Inner Ward of the Tower of London and that this development will cause an additional degree of harm by adding additional bulk and scale to the consented tower at 22-24 Bishopsgate [the Bishopsgate Tower/Pinnacle]. The City’s view, which is shared by GLA officers, is that the building would be viewed as an integral part of the compact eastern cluster, not as an incongruous isolated feature, and that this cluster is a distinctive and accepted townscape feature of the wider setting of the World heritage Site. Inclusive design 9 The applicant has provided further information regarding the accessibility of the upper car of the double stack lift, which is acceptable. The applicant has also retained the revolving doors as main means of access, in order to maintain climate control, with separate accessible doors. This is acceptable. Climate change 10 The applicant has clarified the output tables for projected carbon savings, as requested at stage I. The applicant has also provided details of future connection to a district heat network and this has been secured by condition. Currently the application does not deliver 25% carbon savings, required by the London Plan. The City has imposed a condition requiring incorporation of further measures to reduce carbon dioxide by at least 25% and the applicant is confident that this can be achieved. However, in line with policy 5.2 E the applicant has agreed to a payment towards carbon offsetting elsewhere, should it not prove possible to reach the 25% target. The Corporation has agreed to secure this via condition/section 106 agreement, along the following lines: 11 Condition 12 amended to add at end “in the event that a 25% reduction cannot be achieved on-site any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution in accordance with Policy 5.2E.” 12 Section 106 agreement to include the following provisions: "Cash in lieu contribution" means a sum calculated in accordance with the formula set out in clause [¶.1] Substantive Obligations [¶.1] The cash in lieu contribution shall be calculated in accordance with the formula below: Cash in lieu contribution = (T – R) x Y x cost of shadow price of carbon at the time Where T is the target amount of CO2 (expressed in tonnes) which reflects 25% of the Development's annual CO2 emissions if constructed in accordance with Part L of the 2010 Building Regulations R is the reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted by the Development per year (expressed in tonnes) achieved by the implementation of carbon reduction measures as determined by page 3 reference to the report submitted to the Council in discharge of condition 32 of the Planning Permission. Y is the number of years for which contribution is payable, being 30 years. 13 This is acceptable in this instance. Transport for London’s comments 14 At consultation stage, TfL raised concerns about the quantum of accessible parking proposed, the need to facilitate the Mayor’s Cycle Hire scheme, the condition of local bus stops, the travel plan along with the need to secure a Crossrail contribution, Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction and Logistics Plan (CLP). 15 The applicant has since identified that there are nine existing accessible parking bays located within 300m of this site. These are sufficient to cater for the needs of any disabled users of the development and therefore the only proposed disabled parking bay is deemed acceptable by TfL. 16 TfL understands that the provision of a new Cycle Hire docking station on site would conflict with both the proposed public realm and future pedestrian desire lines. It has also not proven feasible to expand any of the existing nearby docking stations. Nevertheless, taking into account both the cycle parking and staff facilities proposed, TfL considers that, on balance, this application conforms with London Plan policy 6.9. 17 A deficiency in bus stop facilities has been identified. However, taking into account the constrained footways, the provision of any additional passenger waiting facilities was considered unfeasible by TfL. 18 A Delivery & Servicing Plan, Construction Logistics Plan and Travel Plan have all been secured by condition. The implementation of the latter has been included within the draft section 106 Heads of Terms. These are all welcomed by TfL. 19 A Crossrail contribution is also included, however no figure has been stated. Written confirmation has nevertheless been received from the Corporation stating that the full Crossrail SPG amount of £4,774,860 will be included within the final section 106 agreement.