Here is a summary of the topics that were scheduled for discussion at the Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting. Deputy Tom Sleigh was scheduled to chair the meeting. The committee was scheduled to consider planning applications for 1 Old Jewry and 55 Fleet Street.

Planning Applications

1 Old Jewry EC2R 8DN

The Planning Applications Sub-Committee were scheduled to consider a report regarding a planning application for 1 Old Jewry for:

The change of use of part the ground floor retail space to be used for office accommodation (Class E(g)), refurbishment works including reconfiguration of commercial floorspace at basement and ground floor levels; alteration to elevations (including new shopfronts, replacement of existing windows and revise access); erection of a new pavilion and plant room at roof level; and creation of external roof terrace.

The report pack notes that the building is nine stories high and sits between the Bank and Guildhall Conservation Areas. It is primarily office space, with retail units on the ground and basement levels. The report pack states that the application seeks to improve the existing office accommodation by extending the office lobby internally, and adding amenity areas to the roof level. It also mentions alterations to the shopfronts to improve the streetscape.

The report pack notes that a prior planning application for 1 Old Jewry was approved, but then quashed following a judicial review. Following a re-consultation, 11 objections were received, which is why the application was scheduled to be discussed at the Planning Applications Sub-Committee.

The report pack notes that the assessment of the application took into account the London Plan 2021, the City of London Local Plan 2015 and the emerging City Plan 2040.

The report pack states that the site is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), where office development is a priority. The proposal includes improvements to office accommodation, with the addition of office floor space at roof, ground and basement levels. This increase in office space aligns with policies aimed at supporting employment and office growth within the CAZ, in compliance with the London Plan and the City of London Local Plan.

The report pack notes that the proposed development involves the loss of some retail space, which would represent a loss of floorspace within the Cheapside Principal Shopping Centre (PSC), contrary to policy DM20.1 of the Local Plan 2015 and emerging policy RE1. However, it is considered that the proposal would retain a significant amount of active retail frontage to the PSC and makes improvements to the shopfront, addressing existing issues with visibility and vacancy. The limited reduction in retail space is considered acceptable and does not compromise the function of the Cheapside Principal Shopping Centre (PSC), in line with relevant policies on retail provision.

The report pack notes that the proposals for an opened-up ground floor frontage on Poultry and Old Jewry would improve the pedestrian experience, enhance visual permeability, and align with the architectural symmetry of the façade. The proposed pavilion is well designed with limited visibility from surrounding streets and is a scale and materiality subservient to the main structure. The new roof terrace would be accessible to all office users and the ground floor office and cycle entrances and would be updated and relocated in terms of the latter to increase inclusivity of the building.

The report pack notes that an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment has been submitted, identifying only minor below-ground impacts from a new lift pit and drainage. The applicant’s additional submission of documents in March 2025 included a Written Scheme of Investigations (WSI) which was reviewed by the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS). GLAAS raised no objection to the proposals and recommended a compliance archaeological condition.

The report pack notes that the proposed development seeks to improve and increase the office accommodation provided on site, and enhances cycling infrastructure, relocating the bike entrance and adding 77 cycle parking spaces (including 2 accessible). Amendments have been made to comply with the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS), including replacing vertical cycle spaces with more practical options. Servicing arrangements will remain unchanged, with a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan will be secured by condition. The site will be served by existing blue badge bays in the area, Travel Plans will monitor on-street disabled parking demand and promote public transport use. A Construction Logistics Plan will also be secured by condition. Overall, the proposals are considered acceptable in transport terms, subject to the recommended planning conditions.

The report pack notes that the City’s Cleansing team has reviewed the proposed waste facilities and confirmed that they meet the necessary requirements. The proposed waste facilities and collection arrangements are considered acceptable.

The report pack notes that as a minor development, the scheme is not required to meet London Plan Policy SI2 or the City of London’s Carbon Options Guidance, but it adopts similar energy efficiency principles. Existing glass will be replaced with more energy-efficient materials, such as stone spandrels and openable double-glazed windows. The office element targets an ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM rating with a target score of 89.1%, although no formal post-completion certificate is required. The development will enhance ecological value through features like a green roof garden and wildlife habitats, achieving a 105% increase in ecological value. While the application does not trigger the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements, the proposal maximizes greening opportunities. The development also reduces carbon emissions through material reuse, renewable energy measures, and sustainable landscaping, contributing to sustainability and climate resilience.

The report pack notes that Policy DM21.3 of the adopted Local Plan 2015 and emerging Policy HS3 of the emerging City Plan 2040 respectively require all developments to be designed to avoid or minimise overlooking and to seek to protect the privacy of the adjacent residential accommodation, although it is acknowledged that some overlooking is unavoidable in dense urban areas. The development includes a roof terrace and a roof pavilion structure, but it is noted there are no immediate residential properties. The immediate hotel neighbour at 27 Poultry and the club members using the hotel’s roof terrace, objected to the application due to increased levels of overlooking and loss of their privacy from the proposed development. It is noted that hotels/private members clubs, which serve transient guests and members, have different privacy expectations from residential properties. The proposed development does not result in unacceptable overlooking of nearby residential properties, in line with Policies DM10.3 and DM21.3. The applicant made some minor adjustments to their roof design in order to reduce overlooking towards the east side of the proposed terrace as a response to these objections and this is welcomed and overall will result in an acceptable relationship between the two properties.

The report pack notes that the proposed development, located in a predominantly commercial area, is not expected to have a significant impact on daylight or sunlight. The applicant submitted a Daylight and Sunlight Report which assesses the windows facing the application site and the roof terrace of the neighbouring hotel to the east of the site (the Ned). Given the site’s commercial context and the low existing daylight levels at the adjacent Ned Hotel, the impact is minimal. The assessment found only minor reductions in daylight to a few windows, which are typical in urban environments. There are no significant reductions in sunlight to the hotel, and the overshadowing assessment confirms no impact on external spaces. In context, these impacts are acceptable. The proposal complies with the relevant policies regarding daylight and sunlight impacts.

The report pack notes that noise from the roof terrace and plant room will be controlled through conditions, including limited hours, no amplified music, and no events. CoL Environmental Health has raised no objections, ensuring the development complies with relevant policies.

The report pack notes that the development meets Local Plan Policy CS15 and City Plan 2040 policies DE1 and HL2, addressing air quality and achieving air quality neutrality. After a revised Air Quality Assessment, CoL Environmental Health raised no objections, subject to conditions.

The report pack notes that an Engagement Statement was submitted by the applicant detailing discussions with neighbouring occupiers. Statutory consultation requirements and relevant City Corporation guidance was met, allowing stakeholders to engage with the proposal.

The report pack notes that the proposal includes railings on the terrace to reduce suicide risk, in line with Local Plan Policy CS3 and the City’s Planning Advice Note. Full details will be secured by condition.

The report pack concludes that despite the loss of retail, the development is considered to comply with the development plan taken as a whole, and other material considerations including the NPPF and emerging City Plan 2040 also support the grant of the permission in this instance. Accordingly, the proposals are recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

55 Fleet Street, EC4Y 1JU

The Planning Applications Sub-Committee were scheduled to consider a report regarding a planning application for 55 Fleet Street for:

Change of use from vacant office use on part basement and ground floor to an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC).

The report pack notes that the application site is a five-storey building with basement level located on the western end of Fleet Street, situated on its southern side with the ground floor eastern elevation fronting Pleydell Court.

The report pack notes that the application proposes the change of use from Class E offices to sui generis¹ Adult Gaming Centre, across ground floor and part basement levels.

The report pack notes that the loss of office floorspace has not been evidenced through information regarding financial viability nor through evidence of a marketing exercise. The proposed loss of the ground floor would also harm the quality and attractiveness of the office floorspace remaining on the floors above ground floor level. The proposal would also fail to provide a visually or physically permeable active frontage, causing harm to the Fleet Street Primary Shopping Centre, failing to maintain or enhance its vitality or viability.

The report pack notes that by reason of the shared access to the rear of the property, its lack of active frontages, and its operation 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the safety and security of the building and surrounding areas.

The report pack notes that the application itself lacks information concerning operational management, safety and security, protection of residential amenity through noise and disturbance, and servicing and waste management, and as such it has not been demonstrated that there would be an acceptable impact with regards to any of these considerations.

The report pack notes that 24 objections were received and a petition has been submitted objecting to the proposal with 186 signatories.

The report pack recommends that the Development Director be authorised to issue a decision notice refusing Planning Permission for the proposal.

The report pack notes that the proposal fails to justify the acceptability of the loss of office floorspace, including a lack of justification for the impact of the proposal on the office floorspace within the remainder of the building above ground floor level, and with no demonstration that the proposal meets the wider objectives of the Local Plan. The proposal would therefore be contrary to London Plan Policy E1 (Offices), Local Plan Policies CS1 (Offices) and DM1.1 (Protection of Office Accommodation), draft City Plan 2040 Policies S4 (Offices) and OF2 (Protection of Existing Office Floorspace), and the City of London Office Use SPD.

The report pack notes that the proposals would fail to maintain or enhance the vitality or viability of the area as a Primary Shopping Centre, including through its failure to provide physically and visually permeable active frontages, contrary to Local Plan Policies CS20 (Retailing), DM10.1 (New Development) and DM20.1 (Principal Shopping Centres), and draft City Plan Policies S5 (Retail and Active Frontages) and OF2 (Protection of Existing Office Floorspace).

The report pack notes that by reason of the shared access to the rear of the building and the resulting harm to the security of the building, the failure of the proposal to provide active frontages and the proposed operation being undertaken twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that it would be adequately designed to ensure the safe and secure operation of the premises, or maintain the safety and security of the spaces around the building, contrary to Local Plan Policies CS3 (Security and Safety) and DM3.2 (Security Measures in New Development and Around Existing Buildings), and draft City Plan Policies S2 (Safe and Secure City), SA3 (Designing in Security) and S8 (Design).

The report pack notes that by reason of a lack of information submitted to determine their impacts, as related to operational management, safety and security, protection of residential amenity through noise and disturbance, and servicing and waste management, it has not been demonstrated that there would be an acceptable impact with regards to any such matters. Therefore, the proposal is not in accordance with London Plan Policy D13 (Agent of Change), Local Plan Policies CS3 (Security and Safety), DM21.3 (Residential Environment), and DM3.5 (Night-Time Entertainment), and draft City Plan Policies CV5 (Evening and Night-Time Economy) and SA2 (Safe and Secure City).