Agenda item

Application 1 (Planning): Alterations and extensions to the buildings, including installation of an external lift to an existing lightwell of the main building and plant enclosures, in connection with their use as a members wellness club (sui generis).

Application 2 (Listed building): Internal and external alterations, including installation of an external lift to an existing lightwell of the main building, installation of plant enclosures, and associated works.

Councillor Devenish declared that he had a prejudicial interest in the application and therefore left the room during the consideration of this item.

A late representation was received from THIS Planning (07.12.21).

The planning officer tabled the following addition to the report:

1)    ADDITION to section 8.1 ‘Land use’ on page 22 of the agenda, to include the following after second to last paragraph on that page:

The applicant has also offered to pay a financial contribution of £2 million towards Westminster’s Affordable Housing Fund in lieu of retaining the single family dwellinghouse. The applicant suggests Westminster City Council secures this through a legal agreement. Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms, but they may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the relevant tests. They must be:

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

• directly related to the development; and

• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

These tests are set out as statutory tests in regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended by the 2011 and 2019 Regulations) and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. In this case, the applicant’s suggested planning obligation would not accord with these tests. The financial contribution is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The development plan does not require affordable housing contributions where there is an increase in commercial floorspace or where there would be a loss of existing residential floorspace (it is only required in circumstances as described in City Plan Policy 9). Indeed, the proposal would still be unacceptable in planning terms with the financial contribution. This is because City Plan Policy 8 does not allow the loss of existing residential units where an applicant contributes toward the Affordable Housing Fund. Because there is no policy basis for a such a contribution, it also cannot be considered to be directly related to the development nor is there a mechanism to calculate what a fair and reasonable contribution would be for this scale/ type of development. Therefore, Westminster City Council cannot entertain this offer.

Reason for addition

This addition is necessary to address the offer of an affordable housing contribution this applicant has made. The agent’s email’s setting out this offer is appended to this memo.

James McAllister addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the application.

Mary Regnier-Leigh, representing the Belgravia Society, addressed the Sub-

Committee in objection to the application.

Councillor Elizabeth Hitchcock addressed the Sub-Committee in her capacity as Ward Councillor in objection to the application.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

1)              Application 1 - That permission be refused on the grounds that the development would lead to a loss of a single-family dwelling house and the harmful impact the proposed entertainment use would have on the character and function of the area, local environmental quality, and residential amenity.

2)        Application 2 - That conditional listed building consent be granted.

3)        Application 2 - That the reasons for granting conditional listed building consent as set out in Informative 1 on the draft decision letter be agreed.