Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1       There were no changes to the membership.

To receive declarations by members and officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.

2.1       Councillor Richard Beddoe explained that a week before the meeting, all four Members of the Committee were provided with a full set of papers including a detailed officer’s report on each application; together with bundles of every single letter or e-mail received in respect of every application, including all letters and e-mails containing objections or giving support. Members of the Committee read through everything in detail prior to the meeting.  Accordingly, if an issue or comment made by a correspondent was not specifically mentioned at this meeting in the officers’ presentation or by Members of the Committee, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored.  Members will have read about the issue and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting. 

2.2       Councillor Beddoe also declared that in his capacity as Chairman of Planning, he gets to know a number of property developers and planning consultants, although he does not consider them his friends. He added that any Members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations in respect of the applications on the agenda were his friends.

2.3       Councillor Mitchell declared that in his capacity as Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Council’s property portfolio that he regularly meets representatives of the property industry. He also declared that any Members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations in respect of the applications on the agenda were his friends.

2.4       Councillor Burbridge declared that any Members of the Majority Party who had or would make representations in respect of the applications on the agenda were her friends. She also declared in respect of item 1 that she had sat on a committee when she had worked in Parliament that had organised the first statue for women in the House of Commons.

2.5       Councillor David Boothroyd read out the following declaration:

“I am Head of Research and Psephology for Thorncliffe, whose clients are companies applying for planning permission from various local authorities. No current schemes are in Westminster; if there were I would be precluded from working on them under the company’s code of conduct.

Some Thorncliffe clients have engaged planning consultants who are also representing applicants tonight: Savills on item 2, Gerald Eve on item 3, DP9 on item 4 and Rolfe Judd Planning on item 6. However I do not deal directly with clients or other members of project teams, and planning consultants are not themselves clients.

On item 1, an email of support for the application came from Lionel Zetter, who I count as a friend as I worked for him for six years up to 2002.

On item 2, I was contacted by Belgrave representing the applicant who felt that some of the issues in the report should be clarified.

On item 3, I was a member of planning committee deciding redevelopment of the adjacent Carrington Street car park site.”

He further declared in respect of item 1 that he considered Councillor Adam Hug, who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

To sign the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record of proceedings.

3.1       RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th of December 2017 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.

Applications for decision

Installation of a stone plinth and memorial statue to Margaret Thatcher on the west side of Parliament Square

Late representations were received from Councillor Adam Hug (22.1.18), Wendy Franks (21.1.18), Patricia and Nigel Stoughton (21.1.18), Sarah Tibbatts (undated), Lady Silvia Le Marchant (21.1.18), Lionel Zetter (22.1.18), and Sir Henry and Lady Keswick (22.1.18).

RESOLVED:

1.         The Sub-Committee agreed that the particular circumstances of this proposal do not constitute "an exceptionally good reason" to justify a departure from the Council's presumption against new memorials in this part of the City as set out in the "Statues and Monuments in Westminster" Supplementary Planning Document (2008)

2.         Subject to 1 above, permission be refused.

3.         Subject to 1 and 2 above, that the applicant be advised that Members may, without prejudice, consider an application subject to a more appropriate design for the statue and evidence of support from the Thatcher family.

Use of buildings as 13 single family dwellings ( Class C3); removal and replacement of roof, floors, non original stairs; retention of all facades and spine walls and reinstatement of the properties as individual dwellings; excavation of an additional basement beneath existing buildings and extending underneath the rear gardens facing Regents Park.

An additional representation was received from St Martin-in-the-Fields Almshouse

Charity (undated).

Late representations were received from Belgrave (19.1.18) Savills (15.12.17, 22.1.18 and 23.1.18), Peabody (15.12.17) and A2Dominion (18.12.17).

The presenting officer informed the Sub-Committee that the Council’s consultants had revised their assessment of the maximum amount of affordable housing as being viable on site from 21.9% to 17.3%.

RESOLVED:

i)          Members agreed that the maximum amount of affordable housing which has been identified by our consultants (17.3%) as being viable must be provided on site, the proposal for 13 large townhouses fails to optimise the use of these buildings, contrary to policy S14 and the applicant has failed to justify loss of the existing student accommodation use, contrary to policy S15.

ii)         That in view of the policy priority to seek affordable housing on site the current proposal to fund Chesterfield Lodge for the construction of 44 affordable units together with the applicant’s revised payment in lieu ( £7,600,000) is not an acceptable alternative.

iii)        Subject to i) and ii) if the applicant does not revise the scheme in line with the above resolutions within two months, the applications should be refused by the Director of Planning via his delegated powers.

Demolition of 31-35 Brick Street and 37-49 Brick Street and the erection of a stepped ground plus four - seven storey building; including an additional basement level, to be used for up to 135 hotel bedrooms and function and meeting rooms in connection with the existing hotel (Class C1) at 108- 115 Piccadilly (Park Lane Hotel). The replacement of the existing first floor link bridge; the creation of a basement servicing tunnel between the Park Lane Hotel and 31-49 Brick Street; the creation of associated car and cycle parking and servicing facilities; the replacement of the existing rear canopy of the Park Lane Hotel on Brick Street; the removal of part of the rear ground and first floor stair block to create a new rear entrance; the recladding of the rear ground floor including new windows and door and other associated works. (Linked application - 17/08590/LBC) (SITE INCLUDES 31-35 and BRICK STREET AND 37-49 BRICK STREET)

Additional representations were received from Ron Whelan (15.1.18) and Sir Richard Sutton Limited (17.1.18).

A late representation was received from AVA Hospitality Ltd (22.1.18).

The presenting officer tabled the following changes (in bold) to the draft decision letter:

Revised Condition 26

You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings (scales 1:20 and 1:5) of the following parts of the development

i)             New facades - typical details at all levels

ii)            Details of new bridge, including underside of bridge and details of illumination

You must not start any work on these parts of the development until we have approved what you have sent us.

You must then carry out the work according to these detailed drawings.  (C26DB).

Additional Condition 31

You must apply to us for approval of a sample panel of brickwork which shows the colour, texture, face bond and pointing. You must not start work on this part of the development until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work according to the approved sample.  (C27DB).

Reason

To protect the special architectural or historic interest of this building and to make sure the development contributes to the character and appearance of the Mayfair Conservation Area.  This is as set out in S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and paras 10.108 to 10.146 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.  (R27AC)

RESOLVED:

1.            That conditional permission be granted subject to:

A)            a S106 legal agreement to secure the following:

i.              The costs relating to Highway Alterations including works immediately surrounding the site required for the development to occur, including improvements to footpaths and Brick Street changes to on-street restrictions (waiting and loading restrictions);

ii.             A financial contribution to the carbon offsetting fund carbon offsetting fund of £76,500 (index linked and payable prior to commencement of development).

iii.            Crossrail payment (currently calculated at £215,025 but will be reduced to approximately £38,775 following offset against Mayoral CIL as allowed by the SPG).

iv.           Parking Management Plan to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Erection of a floating art installation (The Mastaba) for a temporary display period from 18th June to 23rd September 2018 (construction to commence on 3rd April 2018 and dismantling to be completed by 1st November 2018).

An additional representation was received from The Royal Parks (Undated)

A late representation was received from the Deputy Mayor for Culture and Creative Industries (19.1.18)

RESOLVED:

That conditional permission be granted subject to an informative regarding the safety of the installation in relation to other users of the lake.

Internal and external alterations including the provision of plant and the creation of a terrace at roof level in connection with the use as private members' Club (Sui Generis). (Addendum Report)

An additional representation was received from TAM Limited (17.1.18).

RESOLVED:

1.         That conditional permission be granted subject to an informative that the applicant should consider the use of a glass crusher and amending condition 21 to request that the applicant publishes in good time the public access to the building for a minimum of 2 days annually.

2.         That conditional listed building consent be granted.

3.         That the reasons for granting listed building consent as set out in informative 1 of the draft decision letter

Use of the ground floor front elevation for the retention of existing artwork for a temporary period, and for future temporary displays.

An additional representation was received from Shaftesbury (18.1.18).

The presenting officer tabled the following changes (in bold) to the draft decision letter:

Revised Condition 1

The existing mural to be retained is hereby approved for display for a temporary period until 22 January 2019 on or before which date the mural shall be removed and the building restored to its former condition.

Revised Condition 3

Each of the approved murals can only be installed for a period not exceeding one year. Upon the expiry of the one-year period you must remove the work without delay.

RESOLVED:

That conditional permission be granted subject to changes to the conditions as tabled and set out above.