Full Council
Yet when the full Council met on March 17 to consider this affair, it had before it a report from the Town Planning Committee which in- cluded the following:
The Council will be aware . . . that we have been giving much thought to the future of the Circus and it . . . recorded its desire that our policy of retaining Piccadilly Circus as a cheerful centre of London's entertainment world should be continued and fostered by approving satisfactory architectural schemes which can incorporate illu- minated signs in the design, so producing pleas- ing buildings by day and animation by night.... . . . we have thought it well to give preliminary consideration to the type and shape of buildings that should be encouraged round the remodelled Circus and the Council's Architect has prepared a model and plans with this object in mind serving to show the siting and bulk of buildings which could be put on sites round the Circus.. , .
The . . . area of traffic circulation will be rectangular in form and will be considerably increased in size both from north to south and from east to west and the existing irregularities . in the perimeter will be largely removed. . . . The aim of the tentative scheme drawn up by the architect is to maintain the special character of the Circus and to ensure that any new build- ings which may be proposed will fit in with the design of the new Circus as a whole and make satisfactory provision for the movement of pedestrians, the arrival, parking and departure of cars, the servicing of the buildings and the provision of illuminated advertisements and signs. It also deals with the special problem of provid- ing a concourse to enable people to circulate, free from traffic dangers, between buildings . . . we are not committed to this plan, although the Architect has been authorised to discuss it with prospective developers in the area: its imple- mentation will be dependent on the degree of co-operation which can be obtained. We have. however, taken the line in dealing with individual applications that any buildings proposed should not prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the Circus. . . .
This Committee's Report, astonishing enough already (there is no indication that the Council's comprehensive scheme has been virtually aban- doned), is made more so by the following state- ment in it :
. . . we have approved in principle an exchange of lands with the owners of the Cafe Monico site . . . whereby land required for the first stage of the road improvement will be acquired on reasonable terms.
f this statement is coupled with that of Mr. Bennett, the Council's Chief Architect, to the effect that The developers were able to get a taller building on the Monico site because they bought xtra land on the Glasshouse Street side,' it ecomes even more extraordinary that there is o mention of the Council's arrangement whereby he empty tip of the site can be reckoned for plot- atio and thus acquired at a cost of £80,000 nstead of £180,000.
Anyway, the Town Planning Committee Report ended, 'We consider that the building can take its place as a satisfactory element in the redevelop- ment of the Circus,' and was approved by the Council on March 17, 1959. The developers were therefore advised that 'favourable consideration' ould be given to their scheme (this means, vir- ually, approval) subject to (a) their complying ith the car-parking regulations (they were in- tructed that they should enter into a formal agree- ent under Section 25 of the Town and Country 'lanning Act, 1947), (h) the observance of certain etailed provisions, such as not having a proposed ,iiitb-basement, increasing the loading area, sub- ission to the Council of the facing materials for the building's exteriors, and the like.
The developers properly interpreted this as the green light; demolition has been proceeding merrily for months. (It appears—though the law on the subject is extremely complicated—that if the Minister should in the end refuse permission for the proposed building, Mr. Cotton and his associates will be able to claim a substantial sum from the Council as compensation for loss of development rights, provided the site is razed by the time such refusal is announced.)
By June 29, 1959, the Council's officers had had the reply from the developers to the points raised in their conditions, and the Architect, Chief Engineer and Valuer reported accordingly. The developers made new proposals for their sub- basement, and the officers' Report accepted them; on other, minor, points various compromises and agreements were reached. Once again, 'favourable consideration' was promised subject to the condi- tions, in particular the making of a Section 25 Agreement on parking facilities, and the Ministry's approval of this Agreement.
Previous page
