Massive new 19-storey office building near Fleet Street given green light

Proposals for a new 19-storey office block near Fleet Street have been approved amid concerns key information was left out of planning documents.

Members on a City of London committee queried why objections to the proposed redevelopment of Hill House were not reproduced in full in the meeting pack, and whether it affected their ability to decide on the scheme.

Westminster City Council and The Twentieth Century Society were among those to object due to the potential heritage impacts of the plans. Westminster wrote in its response to the consultation that the redevelopment would be ‘overbearing’ on the Grade-I-listed churches of St Mary Le Strand and St Clement Danes, both of which are on The Strand.

READ MORE: Heritage concerns raised about proposed 19-storey office block just off Fleet Street

Oliver Hunt, Development Director at the applicant Landsec, previously described the plans for Hill House as ‘ambitious’, and would deliver benefits including a new rooftop restaurant and long-term home for Shoe Lane Library.

Under the scheme, the current seven-storey building will be largely demolished and replaced with a 19-storey block. Shoe Lane Library, which is currently located in the basement level, will be reprovisioned, with the new building to also include amenities such as a bar and restaurant, as well as a huge increase in office space.

In documents submitted with the City, Landsec wrote the current structure provides a ‘poor contribution to the public realm’, with the majority of the ground floor being ‘opaque and lacking in active frontage’. It added the office floorspace will be hiked from 15,842 square metres to 44,110sqm.

During consultation, 43 of the 49 responses from residents were in support. However, they all followed the same format, including the sentence: “I am writing to share my support for the Hill House proposals,” with some backing aspects such as the retention of the library.

During yesterday’s Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting (April 9), Common Councillor Natasha Lloyd-Owen queried why officers had not included full responses from the likes of Westminster and Historic England in the pack distributed to members.

Noting fellow member Mary Durcan had earlier incorrectly stated there had been ‘no objections’, Ms Lloyd-Owen said: “I had to go on to the full planning portal to find Historic England and City of Westminster’s objections. And I just want to understand if that’s our usual approach, that we don’t put those who are really important in consultation and who give substantive responses, if we don’t put that in the papers. Because it may be that all members went onto the planning portal and read very carefully and diligently every single consultee response in there, but it’s not the usual habit as I understand it.”

Ms Lloyd-Owen later added: “Why on earth would we not include Historic England and City of Westminster within the paper pack? That means all the members are informed. Conscious of the fact one member thought there were no objections.”

Deputy Marianne Fredericks echoed concerns around the contents of the committee’s papers. She said: “We marked them [Historic England and Westminster] down as external consultation, but they are representation, and we used to ensure that everything was put into our packs so we could read it. You have a summary, but sometimes things can be taken out of context.”

Officers said they typically only include representations from residents in documents prepared for the committee, though that they would note the issues raised.

The scale of carbon emissions and height of the proposed scheme, in particular given it will be nearly five metres taller than the limit set in the emerging local plan for the area, were similarly raised as points of contention.

Alderwoman Sue Pearson said: “We have spent an awful lot of time working on a new local plan. That new local plan puts the maximum height of buildings in that area at 90 metres over the Ordnance Datum. We are being asked before that is even on our radar to go 4.8, nearly 5m taller. If it was 5cm it might be quite acceptable, but why on earth are we allowing it? What is the point of having a local plan with policies if we are just not going to even listen to them?”

Chief Planning Officer Gwyn Richards responded acknowledging the point, though said the emerging local plan cannot be given much weight as it is going through public consultation. He added the height breach is considered acceptable.

Members did speak highly of elements of the scheme, in particular the improvements to be made to the library. Deputy Alastair Moss, a previous Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee, described the proposal as ‘exemplary’.

Deputy Moss added he recommended members ‘disregard’ the concerns raised about the impact on the view of the Grade-I listed St Mary Le Strand. “It is an extraordinary argument that somehow stuff that’s going on at the sides distracts from what’s going on above, and seeing what the form is of a Grade-I structure. It’s a little insulting to think one’s vision is disturbed by things that are going on at the side, which is already disrupted anyway.” The plans were eventually passed by nine votes to six.

Following the meeting, Mr Hunt said: “Our plans for Hill House will deliver more than just a place to work. We believe it will make the commute worthwhile, attract visitors beyond the 9-5, something that’s now becoming increasingly important to companies looking for office space.”

Get the biggest stories from around London straight to your inbox. Sign up to MyLondon's The 12 HERE for the 12 biggest stories each day.