Plans to redevelop a block on the south side of St Helen’s Place, EC3 were approved, despite appeals from representatives of the adjacent St Helens Bishopsgate that the scheme could damage the ancient church.
The scheme, designed by Eric Parry Architects, will provide a new premises, meeting hall, and staff accommodation for the Leathersellers Company, with office space above, and is opposite a previously approved redevelopment on the north side of the dead-end street.
It will retain the existing 1919 Portland stone facade on the south side of 5-7 St Helen’s Place, with facilities for the Leathersellers at ground and basement levels, with five floors of offices totalling 3,157 sq metres.
The livery company had previously arranged to be accommodated in the north side scheme at 15 St Helen’s Place, which also takes in 100 Bishopsgate and is in the ownership of Great Portland Estates and Brookfield.
The developers are understood to be considering a start on site this year for a scheme that includes a modest redevelopment on St Helen’s Place, and a 39-storey tower to the Bishopsgate side of the site.
However, with the administration of developer Mountgrange Capital, the livery company was able to purchase their long leasehold of the block at 5-7 St Helen’s Place, enabling the current proposal with improved accommodation to be put together.
As a result, committee is likely to see a revised application for the reuse of the ground floor at 15 St Helen’s Place, turning it over to offices and retail.
As committee chairman Martin Farr’s company GVA Grimley was involved with the proposals, he removed himself from the committee meeting and John Owen-Ward stepped into the chairman’s role.
To the rear and along its southern boundary, the site abuts – and at some points is physically touching – the grade I listed church of St Helen.
This was the source of concern from church administrators, whose several consultants had made representations concerning the rebuilding and its likely negative impact.
The most damning of these was from planning consultants Roger Tym and in an unusual departure from normal practice planning chief Peter Rees opened by responding to their criticisms.
“I think I should address those points now,” said Rees. The Tym letter suggested the planning assessment had been too narrow; expressed concern that the new building would require a deeper basement jeopardising the church structure; called for a daylight and sunlight report; insisted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was required as the application was connected to that at No 15; and asked for a deferral to consider these matters thoroughly.
“We’ve looked at the church, and are satisfied we’ve had full regard to PPS5,” said Rees. “There’s a suggestion that the north wall may well be supported by the adjoining building. All these are important matters.” But, he noted that the current building was constructed later than the church, and added: “It is a party wall matter.”
Rees noted additional conditions had been proposed to add to the permission “to give comfort to the church.” These require the applicants to provide reports confirming the integrity of the church will not be compromised, to supply foundation design details for approval, and to consult regarding making good any part of the church previously touching the existing building.
Rear elevation of the new Leathersellers building overlooking St Helen’s
Turning to daylight, he commented: “There are no policies with regard to daylight to churches. In planning terms, there is no significant impact, as the proposal is to the north.”
Rights of light, he added, were not a planning matter. Regarding a deferral, he saw no need. “The applicants are in discussions with the church, and have agreed to pay the church’s consultants’ costs.” And the request for an EIA was not relevant, as this application was not linked to the previous scheme on the north side of the street.
Presenting images of the new scheme, Rees went on: “The proposal is to extend the basement downwards, and the roof level is rebuilt.” The new livery hall would be located in a deep basement, top lit from both the front and back of the building. Much of the ground floor will also be occupied by rooms for the livery company, with a circular stair down to the hall.
The current building’s rear facade, facing the church, is of glazed tiles, which Rees described as “very much the back of the building. What is proposed is more elaborate, a much more considered elevation built out of terracotta.”
And at the rooftop level, there would be planting. Rees had praise for designer Eric Parry. “The architect is determined to give this a very modelled treatment.” When showing photo montages, Rees noted they did not yet include the previously approved 39 floor tower.
At the rear of the current building, there are two points where extensions from the building actually abut the church, and there is dispute over whether these are providing a buttressing effect to the ancient structure. “This wall needs to be investigated by surveyors for both parties,” said Rees.
Objector Brian O’Donoghue spoke on behalf of St Helen’s church. “I’m here quite reluctantly, as we’re not against development in the City,” he opened. “There is no evidence before this committee that this development can be carried out, without harming the medieval structure of a grade I listed church. It cannot be left to conditions.”
O’Donoghue also noted a dispute over whether listed building consent was required for the removal of the walls abutting the church.
The restored St Helen’s elevation
“I have the advantage of being familiar with this building,” said Michael Hudson. “It is utilitarian and out of date. I see no planning grounds for not approving this. On balance, it will be an improvement, I think it is a good overall scheme and I support it.”
But not everyone was so positive. “This is a great opportunity to enhance the setting of the church, and I am disappointed by the approach of the livery company,” said Angela Starling. Sophie Fernandes added: “I am slightly concerned by the deepness of the basement. I would support a deferral.”
Rev Dr Martin Dudley noted that English Heritage had no comments to offer on the proposals or their effect on the church. “Presumably this means they have no concerns. I don’t think we should have either.”
“I’m personally in support of this,” said Archie Galloway. “I think there are more than enough safeguards already in this report. I can see no cause for delay in this decision. The works that are proposed are a vast improvement over what is there at present. It’s had its day, that building.”
“I support this application, and the point Dr Dudley has made,” said deputy Michael Welbank. “So many of the other matters are not truly planning matters.”
In response, Peter Rees noted that the area between the new building and the church would be improved compared with its current situation. “We have had concern for the setting of the church.”
He noted that the development was being as generous as it could be, as office space within the new building would actually be less than in the current building. “It is going to take a long time to persuade an applicant to further reduce their floorspace.”
Turning to the structural concerns, Rees reminded the committee of their remit. “It’s not my job, nor yours, to consider structural matters.”
“The other technical matters do need to be resolved. They will be addressed by appropriate conditions.” Rees stressed that English Heritage’s position was one of no comment, not actual support for the proposals – “they are merely leaving the decision to you”.
The scheme was approved with a clear majority vote.
10/00902/FULMAJ
