Plans to redevelop 47-50 Mark Lane were green-lit in 2023, though an amendment was sought following feedback received from potential occupiers
A major redevelopment of an office block by the Tower of London is no longer to include a cultural centre or shops after an amendment to the application was approved. Instead the proposal for 47-50 Mark Lane will focus on delivering more office space due to concerns insurance giant Lockton would pull out of its planned occupation of the building.
The original application, filed by PBBE Mark Lane, a joint venture between PineBridge Investments and Hobart Partners, was green-lit by the City of London Corporation in 2023. Those plans proposed demolishing the existing buildings and replacing them with the new 11-storey Grade A office-led redevelopment.
The scheme, known as The Mark, would also deliver a number of amenities including shops on the ground floor and basement levels and a Heritage and Cultural Centre. A handful of amendments were approved by the Corporation last year including the height of one of the blocks.
As revealed by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) PPBE Mark Lane came back again earlier this year with further requested changes, including the removal of the retail units and the cultural centre.
Documents detailed how a ‘Tourist Touchdown’ space and café would be relocated to Mark Lane, the access to a roof terrace is to be improved, and a new pub is to be installed facing Seething Lane.
Paul Pavlou, a Director at the Pepys Street RTM [Right to Manage] Company representing around 90 nearby flats, previously said locals supported the redevelopment “largely because it was presented as a scheme that would enhance the area with shops, restaurants and a heritage and cultural centre reflecting the historic setting opposite to the Tower of London and All Hallows by the Tower church”.
Mr Pavlou told Corporation members at a Planning Applications Sub-Committee meeting this week that residents have felt “betrayed” by the proposed amendment. He said: “If the original permission needed retail, heritage, and public-facing uses to justify the loss of frontage, why are those same public benefits no longer needed today?”
He added residents have struggled with the argument that without the proposed changes the scheme would be “unviable”. Mr Pavlou said: “We struggle with that, and what I’ve seen is evidence of a preference. I haven’t seen evidence of a necessity. Because nobody has demonstrated why a building of this size can’t accommodate both a headquarters reception and some public-facing uses.”
Huw Griffith from Hobart Partners said feedback had been received on the approved application during marketing which had indicated it would not be able to meet potential occupiers’ expectations.
Lockton however had said they would take the whole block though require a larger presence on the ground floor.
Aaron D’Souza, a Common Councillor in the local Tower ward, said following a meeting last week with the applicants that he understood another site, 50 Fenchurch Street, was still a potential option for Lockton to move into.
Cllr D’Souza, who does not sit on the Sub-Committee, told members he had little choice to object as the proposal “considerably diminishes the very public benefits that were relied upon to justify the original approval, namely the loss of 1,105 square metres of ground floor public benefit through retail and a culture and heritage learning centre”.
The unviability of the scheme, in particular the retail units, as indicated in a report compiled for the applicant was also queried given the number of office workers to occupy the building.
Deputy Marianne Fredericks, also a Tower representative, said she was “confused” by the changes to the application, describing the original proposal as “a dream”.
The feared impacts of the amendments were flagged by Common Councillor Tana Adkin KC, who said: “It’s quite clear that over 1,000sqm of public benefit is being removed in favour of 1,000sqm effectively of office space”
Deputy Tom Sleigh, Chair of the Sub-Committee, admitted it is not the “perfect scheme” but said he would vote to support it. “I live quite close by in that part of east London,” he said.
“It is awash with shops. I don’t think this will make much difference to the provision at all. And also there is no control over what could go in.” The amended application was approved by members with nine votes in-favour and six against.
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.
