Agenda and draft 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 pecuniary interests or any other significant interest in matters on this agenda.

2.1  The Chair explained that a week before the meeting, all 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 emails containing objections or giving support. Members of the Sub-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 Sub-Committee, it did not mean that the issue had been ignored. Members would have read about the issue and comments made by correspondents in the papers read prior to the meeting.

2.2  Councillor Robathan declared an interest in Item 1 and advised that the Application was within her Ward, had attended both public exhibitions and had had two meetings with the Applicant but she had not expressed any opinion on the application.

2.3  Councillor Robathan also declared, in relation to Item 1, that she works with the Knightsbridge Association as the Ward Councillor

2.4  Councillor Robathan also declared that she was Director of the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum but had not been subject to any conversations on the application and did not see any of their submissions before they were sent.

2.5  Councillor Robathan also declared that she sat on the Investment Committee of the Royal Parks but had not discussed the application with them.

2.6  Councillor Robathan also declared that Councillor Hitchcock was her Ward colleague but they had not discussed the application with her.

2.7  Councillor Glen declared an interest in Item1 that he knew some of the objectors but had not discussed the application with them.

2.8  Councillors Fisher and Lilley declared an interest in Item 1 that they knew one of the supporters as he is a ward resident of theirs but they had not discussed the application with him.

2.9  Councillor Williams declared an interest in Item 1 that he had attended a site visit with his Committee colleagues (Councillors Glen, Robathan and Lilley) and Officers but they had not expressed an opinion on the application.

Applications for decision

Partial demolition, rebuild and retrofit of the existing building to provide a building comprising basement, ground and seven upper floors, with part 8th, 9th and 10th floors set back, plus roof top plant rooms. Partial lowering of the existing basement level, use of part ground and first floors for retail purposes (Class E(a)), restaurant purposes (Class E(b)), and the re-provision of public house (sui generis), use of the remainder of the building as offices (Class E(g)(i)) with associated terraces, provision of roof plant, cycle parking, planting, and photovoltaic panels and other associated alterations.

Additional representations were received from the London Diocesan Board for Schools (25.02.25) and Berkeley Estate Asset Management (27.02.25).

Late representations were received from the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum (28.02.25), Knightsbridge Apartments (28.02.25) and Knightsbridge Partnership (03.03.25) and a memorandum from the Presenting Officer who provided a clarification in relation to the table on page 28 of the report and added an additional condition to the draft decision letter (see below).

Additional condition

You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings of:

(a)   Typical bay studies for each façade, sections and elevations, scaled 1:20.

(b)   The roof of the kiosk following removal of the bridge over Raphael Street, scaled at 1:20

(c)   The gate to the servicing yard, scaled at 1:20

(d)   The roof top plant equipment and enclosure, scaled at 1:20.

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 details.

Peter Pulford, on behalf of Berkeley Estate Asset Management, addressed the Committee in support of the Application.

Dan Johnson, on behalf of Knightsbridge Partnership BID, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Henry Morris addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Charles Nasser, on behalf of the residents of 10 Lancelot Place, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Carolyn Apcar, representing Apcar Smith Planning, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Pavel Okhotin, on behalf of the residents in The Knightsbridge, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Melville Haggard, representing the Knightsbridge Association, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Simon Birkett, representing the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Elizabeth Hitchcock, as Ward Councillor and also on behalf of Councillor Tony Devenish, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

RESOLVED: (Grant: Councillors Williams, Fisher and Lilley, Refuse: Councillors Robathan and Glen)

1. That subject to the views of the Mayor of London, conditional permission be granted subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the following obligations:

a) Undertaking of all highways works immediately surrounding the site at the full cost to the developer (highway works to be agreed prior to commencement of the development);

b) Dedication of all areas where the proposed building line is to be set back from the existing as public highway at the full cost to the developer (prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.