Item No.

1

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE

Date

18 August 2020

Classification

For General Release

Report of

Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning

Ward(s) involved

West End

Subject of Report Application 1: 2 Providence Court, London, W1K 6PR

Application 2: 8 Balderton Street, London, W1K 6TF

Proposal Application 1: Redevelopment behind retained facade with three additional floors and mechanical plant within enclosure at roof level, excavation of new basement, to provide hotel use (Class C1) as an extension to the adjacent Beaumont Hotel.

Application 2: Creation of internal openings on all levels to link building to 2 Providence Court and associated works.

Agent Gerald Eve

On behalf of Beaumont Hotel Properties Limited

Registered Number Application 1: 19/02548/FULL

Application 2: 19/02549/LBC

Date amended/ completed

4 April 2019

Date Application Received

4 April 2019

Historic Building Grade 8 Balderton Street is Grade II listed

Conservation Area Mayfair

1. RECOMMENDATION

1. Grant conditional permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure: a) Payment to Economy Team of £42,846.02 (index linked and payable on commencement of development), b) Payment to fund works to the highway at Providence Court to raise the redundant dropped kerb and reinstate pavement, and c) The costs of monitoring the S106 legal agreement.

2. If the S106 legal agreement has not been completed within six weeks of the date of this resolution then:

a) The Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether it would be possible and appropriate to issue the permission with additional conditions attached to secure the benefit listed above. If so, the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine and issue such a decision under Delegated Powers; however, if not;

Item No.

1

(b) The Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning shall consider whether permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the benefit which would have been secured; if so, the Director of Place Shaping and Town Planning is authorised to determine the application and agree appropriate reasons for refusal under Delegated Powers.

2. SUMMARY

2 Providence Court comprises ground and two upper floors and is in office (Class B1) use throughout. 8 Balderton Street comprises of sub-basement, basement, ground and five upper floors and is in hotel (Class C1) use. This building backs onto 2 Providence Court.

At 2 Providence Court, planning permission is sought to allow redevelopment behind the retained facade with three additional floors and mechanical plant within an enclosure at roof level, excavation of a new basement, to provide hotel use (Class C1) as an extension to the adjacent Beaumont Hotel. At 8 Balderton Street, listed building consent is sought to allow the creation of internal openings on all levels to link the building to 2 Providence Court, and associated works. The key issues for consideration are:

• The land-use implications including the loss of office floorspace and the expansion of an existing hotel;

• The impact of the proposal on the Mayfair Conservation Area; • The potential impact on two neighbouring trees; and • The impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

The scheme is considered acceptable in land use terms subject to compliance with the submitted Operational Management Statement submitted by the applicant, ensuring that guest access is only through the existing Balderton Street entrance. Use of external terraces and flat roofs will be prohibited by conditions to ensure noise does not disturb surrounding residents. The loss of the existing office use to another commercial use is uncontentious and compliant with policy. The proposals are in accordance with the Council’s design policies and are not considered to cause harm to the Mayfair Conservation Area nor to the special interest of the listed building. Losses of daylight and sunlight are shown at neighbouring residential properties, but these are considered acceptable in this instance given the location of these windows (e.g. at basement level with a small lightwell), the existing levels of light they receive and the use of the rooms. Conditions shall be added to ensure that windows facing residential properties are fixed shut and/or have suitable glazing to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposal has been negotiated to ensure that neighbouring trees are not negatively impacted by the proposed development. Subject to conditions to protect these trees during construction, the scheme is considered acceptable by the Arboricultural Officer. The scheme is recommended for approval, subject to legal agreement, and complies with the policies set out in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Westminster’s City Plan (City Plan).

Item No.

1

3. LOCATION PLAN 2 Providence Court

..

This production includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the

permission if the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (C) Crown Copyright and /or

database rights 2013. All rights reserved License Number LA

100019597

Item No.

1

8 Balderton Street

..

This production includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with the

permission if the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (C) Crown Copyright and /or

database rights 2013. All rights reserved License Number LA

100019597

Item No.

1

4. PHOTOGRAPHS

Item No.

1

5. CONSULTATIONS

RESIDENTS SOCIETY OF MAYFAIR & ST. JAMES'S No response to date – any response to be reported verbally by Officers MAYFAIR RESIDENTS GROUP No response to date – any response to be reported verbally by Officers ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES No objection subject to conditions BUILDING CONTROL No objection HIGHWAYS PLANNING Objection – No cycle or waste storage details provided. Request that existing dropped kerb is raised and the footway levelled. WASTE PROJECT OFFICER Objection – waste storage details no in accordance with Council guidance ARBORICULTURAL SECTION After lengthy negotiations, no objection subject to conditions HISTORIC ENGLAND (ARCHAEOLOGY) Condition requested HISTORIC ENGLAND (LISTED BUILDS/CON AREAS) No comment CROSSRAIL 1 Conditions requested CROSSRAIL 2 No comment ADJOINING OWNERS/OCCUPIERS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED No. Consulted: 31; Total No. of replies: 9 Objection: 4; Support: 4; Neutral: 1 Four objections have been received raising concerns on some or all of the following grounds: Amenity: - Loss of daylight and sunlight, - Civil legal rights of light, - Accuracy of submitted daylight and sunlight report (later comments acknowledge this

has largely been rectified), - Site visits to properties not undertaken for daylight and sunlight report, - Overlooking and privacy to gardens and rooms

Item No.

1

Other: - Green wall having no depth and not accessible for maintenance Four letters of support have been received for the application. These cover some or all of the following grounds: - Maintain reputation of existing hotel which is to be extended, - Hotel attracts visitors from all over the world which helps support local business, - Existing building outdated and inefficient, which is due to become vacant. - Existing building has good art-deco features which will be retained, - Hotel use more appropriate the office use in this part of the West End, - Hotel to be extended has good record of managing operations. - Existing hotel is a good neighbour, - Hotel occupiers will require same peace and quiet as residential neighbours One neutral representation has been received on the application stating that the interested part does not object to the proposals. PRESS ADVERTISEMENT / SITE NOTICE: Yes THAMES WATER Comments provided and informative requested

6. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6.1 The Application Site

Both application buildings are located within the Core Central Activities Zeon (Core CAZ) and Mayfair Conservation Area. 2 Providence Court is an unlisted building comprising of ground, first and second floors. It is currently vacant but was last in office (Class B1) use. It is located on the northern side of Providence Court in the centre of this short street. 8 Balderton Street is a Grade II listed building comprising of sub-basement, basement, ground and five upper floors. It is in hotel (Class C1) use and currently occupied by The Beaumont. The building is located on the corner of Balderton Street and Providence Court and overlooks Brown Hart Gardens. This building backs onto 2 Providence Court.

6.2 Recent Relevant History 2 Providence Court There is no relevant planning history at this site. 8 Balderton Street Planning permission was granted on 26 January 2012 (RN: 11/06449/FULL) to allow the use of the premises as a hotel (Class C1). The scheme also included basement excavation, demolition and reconstruction behind retained facades, creation of a two-storey set back roof level extension, two storey extension to projecting north wing and installation of habitable sculpture to south wing, associated cycle parking, landscaping and ancillary works. The associated Listed Building Consent was also granted on the same date (RN: 11/06450/LBC).

Item No.

1

7. THE PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought to allow the redevelopment of 2 Providence Court behind the retained façade, with three additional floors and mechanical plant within an enclosure at roof level. The excavation of a new basement is also proposed. The new building will provide hotel use (Class C1) as an extension to the adjacent Beaumont Hotel located at 8 Balderton Street. The proposal has been revised during the determination of the application (mostly at basement level) to accommodate Officer concerns regarding the proposal’s impact on two neighbouring trees. The associated Listed Building Consent application at 8 Balderton Street is to allow the creation of internal openings on all levels to link the existing building to 2 Providence Court, and associated works.

The floorspace figures for these proposals are summarised in the table below.

Existing GIA (sqm) Proposed GIA (sqm) +/-

Office (Class B1) 1172 0 -1172

Hotel (Class C1) 0 2494 +2494

Total 1172 2494 +1322

The existing hotel floorspace at 8 Balderton Street is 6537sqm (GIA). Once the proposed scheme is included, the total hotel space provided across both 8 Balderton Street and 2 Providence Court would be 9031sqm GIA. The proposal will provide an additional 25 suite rooms for The Beaumont Hotel, bringing the total number of rooms from 73 (50 guestrooms and 23 suites) to 98 in total (an increase of 34.82%). Additional back of house facilities will also be provided

8. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Land Use

Loss of Office use The proposals will result in the loss of 1172sqm of office (Class B1) floorspace. There are no policies which prevent office space being converted to other commercial uses. While the Council now safeguards office floor space, in recognition of Westminster's role as the most significant business centre in the UK, this only protects office space when the proposed change of use is to residential. The loss of office space in this instance would not be resisted and is considered acceptable. Extension of Hotel use UDP Policy TACE 2 states that new hotels and extensions to existing ones within streets in the Core CAZ which do not have a predominantly residential character will be granted permission where there are no adverse environmental and traffic effects, and where adequate on-site facilities are incorporated within developments proposing significant amounts of new visitor accommodation. City Plan Policy S23 encourages proposals to improve the quality and range of hotels. The supporting text to UDP Policy TACE 2 states, where appropriate, the City Council will attach conditions to planning permissions for hotel development to ensure that

Item No.

1

functional areas within hotels, such as restaurants, bars, etc., are restricted to use by resident hotel guests only and that such areas are used only in conjunction with the main use of the building as a hotel. The proposal will provide an additional 25 suite rooms (previously 28 rooms prior to the revision of the scheme) for The Beaumont Hotel, bringing the total number of rooms from 73 (50 guestrooms and 23 suites) to 98 in total (an increase of 34.82%). Additional back of house facilities will also be provided. The applicant advises that the proposed development does not include any additional kitchen or dining facilities and it is intended that the food and beverage operation will not change. The proposed ground floor plan shows a large area marked as FOH1 (Front of House 1) with access to a new courtyard. There was initial concern that this area, combined with the courtyard, could be used to facilitate a new bar or similar area. However, the applicant has confirmed that this will not be the case and the area will serve as a general guest circulation space and provide space as a meeting point or luggage drop off for guests etc. who are occupying the extension. This courtyard area is discussed later in this report in more detail, in section 8.7, but it’s use shall be restricted by condition. The smaller FOH2 is provided as a lobby area for the DDA compliant access to the extension. DDA compliant access is also available from the main entrance on Balderton Street through the hotel to this extension. The applicant advises in the submitted Operational Management Plan (OMP), that the principle public entrance to the hotel shall remain through the main Balderton Street entrance. However, the entrances on Providence Court will provide a secondary option for the residents staying in the extension only. They advise that this would be managed by the hotel’s front of house staff. The original permission for the use of 8 Balderton Street as a hotel permitted on 26 January 2012 (RN: 11/06449/FULL) includes a condition (number 18) which reads:

“Other than in the case of emergency, the access to the hotel for resident and non-resident guests shall be via the main entrance on Balderton Street.”

This condition was added so as to protect residential amenity of the residential premises on Providence Court. As this proposal is to extend the existing hotel, the same logic must follow and access from Providence Court for guests would not be acceptable. This is more of an issue since the previous permission was granted as, due to the completion of the development at 1-7 North Audley Street/20 Grosvenor Square (which also fronts onto Providence Court), there is substantially more residential on Providence Court than before. As such, a similar condition requiring access to only be from Balderton Street must be included on this permission, so as to uphold the spirit of the previous consent’s approach to protecting amenity. Access for emergency purposes shall still be acceptable from the proposed doors on Providence Court.

The submitted OMP also covers security for the enlarged hotel, including CCTV, security guards and late night security etc., control of noise emissions by keeping external doors and ground floor windows closed at all times, with the exception of the main entrance on Balderton Street, which is attended at all times by door staff. Servicing is also described as continuing to take place from the existing side entrance to the Balderton Street

Item No.

1

building, located on Providence Court, in line with the existing arrangements. Regarding taxi drop off and parking, the OMP identifies that a designated taxi drop off area is already provided on the Balderton Street frontage, and that existing arrangements for hailing taxis will continue. Existing guest valet parking will continue to be provided between the hotel and their associated garage located at 21 Lees Place.

The Highways Planning Manager has confirmed that, given the existing use of the site, the size of the proposal and the fact that there is no increase in restaurant floor space or other ancillary facilities associated with the hotel it is considered that the likely level of servicing will not increase noticeably or have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding public highway.

With the exception of guest entry through the extension at 2 Providence Court, which shall be prohibited by condition as discussed above, compliance with this OMP shall be secured by condition to ensure the operation of the enlarged hotel is acceptable in accordance with Council policies. Subject to the conditions discussed above, the enlarged hotel is considered acceptable in land use terms and in accordance with UDP Policy TACE 2 and City Plan Policy S23. Affordable Housing and Mixed Use Policy No residential floorspace is required to be provided as a result of this proposal under City Plan policy S1, as the requirement only relates to net additional B1 office floorspace, not hotel (Class C1). Similarly, the proposal is not one which is required to provide affordable housing under Council policies.

8.2 Townscape and Design

The key legislative requirements in respect to designated heritage assets are as follows: Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that “In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Section 66 of the same Act requires that “In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” Section 72 of the same Act requires that “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area…special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.” Whilst there is no statutory duty to take account of effect on the setting of a conservation area, Policy DES 9 (F) in the UDP requires that where development will have a visibly adverse effect upon a conservation area’s recognised special character or appearance,

Item No.

1

including intrusiveness with respect to any recognised and recorded familiar local views into, out of, within or across the area, it will not be permitted. Furthermore Chapters 12 and 16 of the NPPF require great weight be placed on design quality and the preservation of designated heritage assets including their setting. Chapter 16 of the NPPF clarifies that harmful proposals should only be approved where the harm caused would be clearly outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, taking into account the statutory duty to have special regard or pay special attention, as relevant. This should also take into account the relative significance of the affected asset and the severity of the harm caused. The existing building is an attractive three storey warehouse building in the Mayfair Conservation Area. It is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and there is a presumption to retain it. It sits between an unlisted neo-Georgian building to the west and the grade 2 listed Beaumont Hotel on Balderton Street (formerly a multi-storey car park) to the east. The proposal retains the front facade and adds one sheer storey, and two more floors above, set back from the street frontage to reduce their visual impact, and to align (at fifth floor level) with the Beaumont Hotel. On top of the roof is a plant area enclosed by an acoustic screen, on the east side, adjacent to the hotel. The plant will be the same height as that on the hotel. The windows are to be replaced with new steel windows, in an appropriate warehouse style. The new third floor is faced in brickwork and designed to relate closely to the facade below. The top two floors are also clad in brick with fenestration to align with that of the existing façade, but with slightly simplified design detailing. New doors and windows are proposed at ground floor level. At the rear the new facades are designed in a similar fashion to the new upper floors.

The building lies to the west of the grade 2 listed Beaumont Hotel, Balderton Street and south of the Grade 1 listed St Mark’s Church, North Audley Street. The former was recently redeveloped behind its front façade and the rear of the building is modern. The proposal reults in a large increase in height and bulk at the northern end of the site, close to St Mark’s Church. However, this massing is similar to that of the Beaumont Hotel and it would be screened in views from the church by the mature trees in the yard on the south side of the church. It is considered that the proposals will not cause harm to the settings of these listed buildings.

Listed building consent is also sought for openings in the west wall of the hotel to create links between the two buildings. These will not harm the special interest of the listed building. It is considered that this is a high-quality scheme which will preserve and enhance (and not harm) the character and appearance of the Mayfair Conservation Area. It will not harm the setting of the listed hotel building. It complies with the City Council's urban design and conservation policies including S25 and S28 of the City Plan and policies DES1, DES 5, DES 6, DES 9 and DES10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Item No.

1

8.3 Residential Amenity Council records indicate that the site is neighboured by a large amount of residential properties to the west on North Audley Street. All of the properties which back onto the site, 8-10 (Audley House), 11-12 and 13 appear to be in residential use on the upper floors. Policy S29 of the City Plan relates to health, safety and wellbeing and states that the Council will resist proposals that would result in an unacceptable material loss of amenity. Policy ENV13 of the UDP aims to safeguard residents’ amenities, and states that the City Council will resist proposals which result in a material loss of daylight/sunlight, increase in the sense of enclosure to windows or loss of privacy or cause unacceptable overshadowing to neighbouring buildings or open spaces. Sunlight and Daylight The application is supported by a detailed daylight and sunlight report in accordance based on BRE (Building Research Establishment) guidelines. The report assesses the impact of the development on properties at Nos. 8-10, 11-12, 13 North Audley Street, and Nos. 18, 19 and 20 Providence Court. This report has been updated after neighbouring residents raised objections that not all windows on their properties had been assessed. Following these revisions, during which the daylight consultants visited residents’ properties, the objectors recognise that the original shortcomings of the report have been largely overcome. Accordingly, this aspect of the objection is not considered to be sustainable. Daylight Under the BRE guidelines, the amount of daylight received to a property may be assessed by the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) which is a measure of the amount of sky received at the outside face of a window, at its centre point. If this achieves 27% or more, the window will have the potential to provide good levels of daylight. The guidelines also suggest that reductions from existing values of more than 20% should be avoided as occupiers are likely to notice the change. The report demonstrates that there will be losses in excess of the BRE guidelines at a number of windows in 8-10, 11-12 and 13 North Audley Street and 18 and 19 Providence Court. The impacts upon VSC for each of these properties is discussed below. 18 Providence Court: There are 3 windows which fail to meet BRE guidelines at this property. These windows are located at first, second and third floors (one at each) and each serve a room with a second window which still complies with BRE guidance with the proposal in place. Given that the losses are marginally above the BRE guideless (at 21%) and these rooms have a second window, these small losses are considered acceptable in this instance. 19 Providence Court: The losses at 19 Providence Court are at eight windows, two to a living room and two to a bedroom at both first floor and second floor level. The living rooms are served by a total of 4 windows, two of which are experiencing losses in excess of the BRE guidelines, with the highest loss being 28% to a single window. The worst affected living

Item No.

1

room is at first floor level and has four windows with existing VSC values of 12.56%, 18.84%, 11.50% and 13.89%, respectively reduced to 12.44%, 14.60%, 11.11% and 10.03%. Considering that these rooms are served by multiple windows and the base levels of these windows in question are already below the BRE guidelines of good daylight levels, these losses are considered acceptable given that the actual impact (as opposed to relative loss) is not so large. Regarding the losses to the bedrooms, each of the two bedrooms are served by two windows, with both windows being identified as experiencing losses above BRE guidelines. The largest loss to a bedroom window is 27%. Given that the base levels in these rooms are already low (the highest base level being 17.43) and below BRE identified good base levels, and that BRE guidelines identify bedrooms as being less sensitive to loss in light due to the nature of their use, the losses to these windows are considered acceptable. 8-10 North Audley Street: The submitted report shows that a total of 18 windows fall short of the BRE guidelines at this property. These are at first, second and fourth floors. The third floor has not been assessed as records indicate that this floor is entirely in office use. At first floor, six of the nine assessed windows fail. These are all identified as being for bedrooms and bathrooms. Each bedroom on this floor is identified as having 2 windows serving it. Two of the windows have existing very poor situation (existing 8.53% and 7.92%), one of these serves a bathroom, and the other is one of two windows for a bedroom. The other three windows have below existing levels below 18.92%, which is already below BRE guidelines. The losses for the windows range from 47% to 71%. Given the low existing levels which produce a disproportionately high percentage change and the uses of the rooms, these loses to these windows are considered acceptable in this instance. Seven of the nine windows assessed fail at second floor. As with the first floor, these windows all serve bedrooms (with two windows) and bathrooms and have low base levels ranging from between 10.83% to 23.90% (with only three above 20% and the other four being below 18%). The loses range from 68% to 38% however, again, these percentage changes show a relatively small absolute change and given the uses of the rooms, the losses are considered acceptable here. At fourth floor, five of the eight windows assessed fail BRE guidelines. As with the affected windows at first and second floors, these windows all serve bedrooms and bathrooms, though one of the bedrooms appears to have only window (whereas most have two). These windows again experience low base levels (between 11.57% and 30.48%) but with a number of these being only just above the BRE recommended levels. Given the urban context of these properties and the uses of the rooms, these loses are considered acceptable in this instance. 11-12 North Audley Street: The report shows that there are 10 windows which experience losses in VSC at this site, all at basement and ground floor level. The four basement windows all serve the same single large bedroom and experience losses between 44% and 21%. However, these windows experience a particularly bad existing situation as the small lightwell that serves them in particularly shallow in depth and does not allow much light in. The existing light levels for the windows range between 5.34% to 10.79%, all substantially

Item No.

1

below BRE identified good base levels: , the large percentage changes represents small absolute changes. Given the room’s use as a bedroom and the existing poor situation, it is considered that these loses are acceptable in this circumstance. Of the six windows at ground floor level, 5 serve the same large drawing room. The sixth serves an internal circulation space. The windows which serve the drawing room are all extremely large (almost full height) yet still experience a poor existing situation with light levels only between 10.81% and 16.92%, all below the BRE base levels identified as being good. The losses at these windows range from between 36% to 24%. Again, with low base values, the small absolute changes translate to large percentage changes. Given this, it is not considered that the losses of light to this room can be resisted. The circulation space window again suffers from the same issue as low base level (8.82%) despite not being as significant in size. The loss of 31% is considered acceptable at this window due to the disproportionate impact the small absolute change has on the percentage values, and as it is not serving a habitable room. 13 North Audley Street: The report demonstrates that seven of the assessed windows will not comply with BRE guidelines. Two of the seven losses are to windows which are not considered to serve habitable rooms - these are a basement level bathroom and a ground floor circulation space used as a utility room. These windows also have very low base values, with the bathroom having a base value of 2.25% and circulation space 8.02%. Given the use of these rooms and their low base values, it is considered that the losses at these windows are acceptable. There are two other windows at ground floor which experience losses. One of these is a conservatory window which shows a loss of 24% however, this is dual aspect room and also has windows facing away from the site, which are unaffected by the proposal. The daylight report discusses that the mean VSC for room is compliant with BRE, with an overall loss of only 12%, and as such the loss would not be noticeable. Given this, it is considered that the loss to this window is acceptable in this instance. Two windows at first floor experience losses of 23% and 44%. Both of these windows serve the same bedroom, along with a third window which still falls within BRE guidelines. Given that the base levels for these windows are already low (being 16.18% and 13.28%) and below BRE identified good base levels, that BRE guidelines identify bedrooms as being less sensitive to loss in light due to the nature of their use, and that there is an additional window which still complies with BRE guidelines, the losses to these windows are considered acceptable in the circumstances. A bedroom window at second floor also experiences a loss above BRE guidelines of 24%. Again, this bedroom is served by a total of three windows, the other two of which are complaint with the guidelines. As with the bedroom windows at first floor, given that the room is served by multiple windows and its use, the loss here is considered acceptable. Sunlight In terms of sunlight, the BRE guidance states that if any window receives more than 25% of the Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH where the total APSH is 1486 hours in London), including at least 5% during winter months (21 September to 21 March) then

Item No.

1

the room should receive enough sunlight. If the level of sunlight received is below 25% (and 5% in winter) and the loss is greater than 20% either over the whole year or just during winter months, then the loss would be noticeable. Only those windows facing within 90 degrees of due south require testing. The sunlight assessment demonstrates that, of the rooms which required assessment, seven windows at 13 North Audley Street experience losses in excess of the BRE guidelines. All other windows assessed are shown to be compliant with BRE guidelines. Of the windows identified of experiencing losses in APSH, three of the windows are at ground floor. These serve a circulation space and a day room in 13 North Audley Street, and a part of St Marks Church. The loss at St Marks Church would not be resisted as this serves a commercial property, which Council policies do not seek to protect to the same extent as residential properties. The loss to the circulation space in No. 13 would also not be resisted as this would not be considered to be a habitable room under BRE guidelines. The loss to the day room, is to one of 3 windows serving this room, of which the other 2 both pass the BRE criteria comfortably. Given this, it is considered this loss to one of the 3 windows for this room is acceptable in this instance. The other losses are in winter APSH, and are to 4 windows are located at first floor level, three of which serve a dressing room (served by a total of 4 windows) and the other serves a bedroom (which is served by a total of 3 windows). All of these windows experience very low existing base levels, with all but one being no higher than 5%, and the highest being 7%. As two of the windows serving the bedroom are still compliant with BRE guidelines and would still experience good levels of winter APSH with the proposal in place, the loss to this window is considered acceptable. The losses to the windows serving the dressing room. Given that this room already receives low levels of winter APSH and is served by multiple windows, the absolute losses are shown as a higher percentage loss. Given that the room is lit by multiple windows, it would be difficult to resist the losses shown here and they are considered acceptable in this instance. The previously discussed ground floor window serving the day room also experiences a loss of winter APSH however, as before, the other windows serving this room are still compliant with BRE guidelines. This loss is again acceptable. Objections Objections have been received from 11-12, 13 and 13a North Audley Street regarding the impact of the proposed development on daylight and sunlight at these buildings. In further comments from the objectors after revisions to the daylight and sunlight report, the objectors note that they are now happy to leave the assessment of this to the Council and for a view to be taken on the extent to which the proposals do not comply with BRE guidelines. As discussed above, there are some breaches in the BRE guidelines to a number of windows at these properties however, overall it is considered that these losses are minimal and that on that basis, permission could not reasonably be refused. Accordingly, these objections are not considered to be sustainable. Objection has been received on behalf of the Diocese of London, who are the owners of St Mark's Church and 13 and 13a North Audley Street adjacent to the site. The objection is in relation to loss of daylight and sunlight at both of these properties and that no site visits to these properties have been undertaken for the daylight and sunlight report. As

Item No.

1

discussed above, the applicant’s daylight and sunlight consultant has now visited 11-12,13 and 13a North Audley Street at the request of the objectors (as has the case officer) and updated their report accordingly. In addition, it is not always possible for properties to be accessed while creating daylight and sunlight reports. It is therefore industry practice to create such reports based on available information (such as from planning records or estate agent records available online etc.). As also discussed above, the impacts on 13 and 13a North Audley Street have been found to be acceptable in this instance. This aspect of the objections therefor cannot be upheld. St Mark's Church has recently been converted to a sui generis food hall/retail premises (Mercato Mayfair). BRE guidelines do not specify that such commercial buildings would require assessment within a daylight and sunlight report and accordingly it has not been assessed. Following a visit to the site by the case officer, it is also evident that the main part of the property is both dual aspect, and served by large windows (a number of which have decorative stained glass) at ground floor and gallery level on the north and south sides, as well as circular windows in the clerestory, away from the main building line. The eastern end of the main area of the church is also served by a large stained-glass window as well as larger windows at clerestory level. The property will still experience large amounts of natural lighting and the proposal would be unlikely to have an overall significantly negative impact on the building. As such, the objections relating to this building cannot be upheld. Additionally, it should be noted that the current occupier of St Mark’s has specified that they do not object to the application, and that a member of the St. Mark’s Church Committee has written in support of the application. The objection on behalf of the Diocese also refers to legal rights of light and how these have not been considered in the assessment or the submission. Rights of light are a private civil matter and not one which falls within the Planning System. It is therefore considered that planning permission cannot reasonably be withheld on these grounds and this part of the objection may not be upheld. Sense of Enclosure The proposed works will increase the height of the building on this site by three floors. This will increase the mass of the site and may lead to some increase in sense of enclosure to neighbouring properties however, the building has been designed as best as possible to minimize this by setting the upper floors of the building back from the western boundary of the site at these additional levels, as this is where any residential properties are located. While a sheer elevation is proposed for the new floors on the northern elevation, this is only likely to impact St Mark's Church which, as a commercial building, with limited existing outlook, would not be sought to be protected significantly. As a result, it is not considered that the proposals will have any significant impact on the sense of enclosure for properties surrounding the site. Privacy and Overlooking The proposal includes a number of flat roofs towards the rear of the development, at 1st, 3rd and 4th floors. There is also an area at the front at 4th floor, which is labelled as a ‘terrace’, but has no doors indicated on the drawings. The applicant has advised that these areas are not intended for use by guests of the hotel, and will only be accessed for maintenance purposes. To ensure there is no negative impact on amenity of the surrounding residential premises, a condition to this effect shall be applied.

Item No.

1

Objections have been received regarding increased overlooking to gardens and properties of 11-12 and 13 and 13a North Audley Street as a result of the proposal. The most significant concerns regarding overlooking would come from external terraces and balconies. As discussed above, these are not a feature of the proposal. With regards to overlooking from hotel suite windows, this is considered to be acceptable as the proposal includes translucent glass to the lower panes (approximately two thirds of the window height) in all windows on the west elevation (facing the rear of the North Audley Street properties). Additionally, these windows are only located in the set-back of the new lightwell/courtyard, so are set back from the site boundary. This translucent glazing will prevent any direct overlooking to the garden or windows of 11-12 North Audley Street, as well as partly for 13 and 13a North Audley Street, and it’s installation and retention shall be secured by condition. Windows in the north elevation do not include this translucent glazing however, views from these windows will be at the wall of St Mark's Church. There will be little to very limited possibility to view the garden or windows of 13 and 13a North Audley Street due to the windows not being openable and the relatively obtuse angle not allowing any direct views into windows. A condition shall be imposed to ensure that the windows remain unopenable on this elevation so as to ensure that any future alterations to the building do not allow for overlooking or loss of privacy. As a result, and subject to conditions, it is not considered that the objections on the grounds of loss of privacy and increased overlooking can be upheld.

8.4 Transportation/Parking

The Highways Planning manager has assessed the application and provided comments on the scheme. With regards to the change of use, he has identified that there may be a loss of commercial parking spaces within the building (in the ground floor area accessed by the large entrance with the dropped kerb). There is no objection to this possible loss as it would be compliant with Council Car Parking Policies TRANS 21 and TRANS 22. The drop kerb on Providence Court will be made redundant as a result of the proposals and will need to be raised and the footway made good, with the expense of all associated works covered by the applicant. These works will need to be carried out within 3 months of the completion of the approved development. The applicant has agreed that such works shall be secured through the legal agreement associated with this application. No car parking is provided for the proposed development however, as the site has high levels of accessibility to public transport and with existing parking controls in the area, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on on-street parking in the area. However, given the proposed nature and size of the rooms in the proposed hotel extension , a condition restricting the length of stay is requested (limiting stay to not exceed 89 days). Whilst the existing Class B1 use could potentially generate higher volumes of vehicle movements associated with servicing of individual tenants of the office accommodation (albeit with low dwell times e.g. courier delivery), the proposal is likely to attract more private vehicular trips by guests arriving and departing (e.g. taxis). The proposal has the potential to generate more pedestrian trips but these trips would be spread out further

Item No.

1

over the day with no definitive peaks. On balance, it is considered that the proposal will not have a significant detrimental impact on highway safety or operation.

UDP policy TRANS 20 requires off-street servicing, but none is provided in these proposals. The site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone, which means that single and double yellow lines in the vicinity allow loading and unloading to occur. The largest regular service vehicle expected to be associated with this development in this location is the refuse collection vehicle which will service the proposal in a similar fashion to the current B1 use.

Given the existing use of the site, the size of the proposal, the fact that there is no increase in restaurant floor space or other ancillary facilities associated with the hotel, it is considered that the likely level of servicing will not increase noticeably nor have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding public highway.

The London Plan Policy 6.9 requires 1 cycle parking space per 20 bedrooms. The proposal includes cycle parking storage but no specific details are included on the plans. Provision of cycle parking for staff will help reduce reliance on other less sustainable modes of transport. Details of the number of cycle spaces shall be secured by condition.

8.5 Economic Considerations

The economic benefits of a more intensive use of the site as a result of the increase in hotel floorspace are welcomed.

8.6 Access

Access from Providence Court will allow for DDA compliant access and egress however, as discussed above, the access for guests of the hotel shall be from the Balderton Street entrance, to protect residential amenity. The proposed floorplans show that level access is provided through the hotel from Balderton Street into the extension.

8.7 Other UDP/Westminster Policy Considerations Noise Courtyards There is a courtyard proposed at ground floor level which has doors accessing it from the proposed front of house area. The applicant advises that the purpose of the proposed courtyard is to provide natural light to the rooms facing the western elevations of the extension, with the doors to provide staff access so that the landscaping and garden of the courtyard can be maintained. The applicant advises that these doors will be locked at all times and will only be accessible to specific members of hotel staff. The applicant has advised that they would be happy to have a condition in place controlling this access. The Environmental Health Officer has raised similar concerns regarding this courtyard in light of its proximity to residential properties, and has requested a condition restricting the hours of use of this area. Given that this area is not to be accessed by guests of the hotel, it is considered a general condition as identified above is more appropriate.

Item No.

1

A second small ground floor courtyard has been included in the proposals during the process of determination at the rear. This is to provide a porous surface to allow natural drainage to the tree roots below and is relatively small in size but nonetheless, the above-mentioned condition shall also apply to this courtyard. Noise from Internal Activity The Environmental Health Officer has advised that, hotel use types have the capabilities to play recorded and live music within that can be transmitted to neighbouring properties. As there are residential properties immediately adjoining the proposed hotel use (at Audley House, 8-10 North Audley Street) they have requested that a condition be imposed to limit the noise transfer from internal activities (such as live music) through the fabric of the building to neighbouring properties, and a corresponding condition requesting a supplementary acoustic report to demonstrate that the criteria of this condition are met. Mechanical Plant The applicant has submitted an acoustic report in support of the proposed mechanical plant, which will be located internally at basement and at roof level in a plant enclosure. This report has been assessed by The Environmental Health Officer who has advised that, assuming the plant is not tonal, the design noise level will be 10dB below the background noise levels. This is in line with the Council’s noise and vibration criteria however, the proposed plant and operational hours have not been specified. So as to ensure that the necessary design criteria is achieved, it is recommended that a supplementary acoustic report is secured via condition. The installation and retention of the necessary acoustic screen at roof level shall also be secured by condition. Refuse/Recycling The Waste Project Officer has assessed the application and raised objection on the grounds that the submitted plans do not show details for waste storage which are in line with Council requirements. The Highways Planning Manager has raised the same concern. However, the applicant advises that the proposals represent a small increase in servicing and waste management requirements and as such, the existing hotel servicing and waste management facilities will be more than capable of absorbing any small increase. On this basis, it is not considered necessary to impose the requested conditions and the objections cannot be upheld. Trees Extensive negotiations has taken place regarding the impact of the proposals on two neighbouring trees, one located in the grounds of St Marks Church almost on the shared boundary (T1) and one in the garden area of 11-12 North Audley Street (T2). Initially, serious concerns were raised by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer in relation to the impact the proposals would have on both the roots and the canopies of the trees. The originally proposed scheme intruded significantly in the root protection area (RPA) of T1. The originally proposed basement also encroached within the RPA of T2. There were also serious concerns regarding the significant impact of height and bulk of the new building towards the rear of the site and how this would affect the canopy of both trees and what growth the development would allow for the trees.

Item No.

1

Canopies Following a request for further information regarding tree canopies, the applicant’s arboricultural consultant provided further information regarding the tree canopies and pruning history showing the previous pruning points, the relationship with the tree canopies, and an outline in two sizes of tree canopy– the larger outline showing the current canopy dimensions and the smaller estimating the canopy outline 2-3 years after pruning, if the trees were pruned back to the same reduction points. Following this additional information, the relationship between T2 and the proposed building upper stories is acceptable. With regards to T1, the applicant’s consultant estimates that after 3 years regrowth there would still be a 1.15m gap between the tree canopy and the rear façade, at the closest point. This is based on the Council’s record of applications to prune this tree with the most recent being in 2012 (however, it does appear some lateral growth may have been pruned back from the building more recently than 2012, as the vertical regrowth is substantially larger in diameter than the lateral regrowth on the building side). T1 has two pruning points which are very close to the proposed building – 2.27m and 2.5m away. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer believes that it is very likely that regrowth from these points could touch the building within 2 years following pruning, and almost certainly within 3 years. However, whilst maintaining the view that the relationship between the tree and the building is likely to be uncomfortable, a pruning cycle of 2-3 years for a London plane in close proximity to buildings is not unreasonable and therefore it would be difficult to support a reason for refusal on that basis. Following the suggestion from the applicant’s agent, the windows of the hotel were re-configured to reduce conflict i.e. with bathroom and stairway windows only looking out into the tree canopy. Now the window closest to the canopy of T1 serves a stair. This has somewhat reduced the conflict with the tree canopy. As such the relationship between the canopy of T1 and the proposed upper stories is considered acceptable. Roots The original proposal included a basement which extended beneath the full footprint of the site, including substantially within the RPA of T1 and of T2. The information provided by the applicant demonstrated that T1 and T2 are both rooting beneath the existing building and utilising the area within the circular RPAs. The loss of this rooting area will not be acceptable, particularly as the overall rooting environment is already extremely constrained. The applicant was subsequently advised on numerous occasions that the basement must be set back to enable the RPAs of T1 and T2 to be protected. The existing ground floor foundation slab was also identified as needing to be retained, in addition to the boundary walls and the above ground structure within the RPAs, in order to ensure that the roots are adequately protected. Following significant negotiation, the scheme has been revised to reduce the size of the basement. The basement now falls outside of the RPAs for both T1 and T2. This satisfied the Arboricultural Officer’s key concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the roots of the trees and is considered to be the largest basement possible for the site with the information currently available.

Item No.

1

Any larger basement would be unacceptable in principle at this time based on available information, however, should additional information be collected in the future (during construction for example), the possibility of a larger basement could be re-considered. The applicant has tried to argue that a suitable condition be attached to a permission at this time to allow for excavations to begin and, should no roots be found, a larger basement be constructed. A similar condition was used for the hotel permission at 8 Balderton Street but only because that basement encroached into the RPA of T1 a very small amount. The potentially larger basement in the current scheme encroaching into a significant portion of the RPA in this location is not a suitable option here in this case. The applicant would have the option to apply for a larger basement by way of either a new planning application or varying this one under Section 73. There are concerns over drainage and construction impact, which require additional information. The small existing ‘courtyard’ at the rear of the site will be covered by the new ground floor structure. A new courtyard will be created closer to the tree to provide drainage water for the tree. There will also be a new open area at ground floor level where the fire exit will be located. Although the existing courtyard (also at the rear of the site) is covered in concrete, nonetheless this area will have offered some degree of natural rainwater drainage into the soil below. The scheme has been revised to include a porous surface in the rear fire exit courtyard (which is closer to T1) to provide natural drainage to the RPA. Due to ownership and practicality constraints, the rear fire escape route area is the only location suitable to provide this more porous surfacing. Additional details of this porous surface shall be secured by condition. The Arboricultural Officer also had significant concerns regarding the process of construction and the impact this would have on the tree roots, in particular the use of a piling rig on site. The applicant’s updated report states that the existing slab will be load tested to ensure its suitability as a platform for the piling rig without damaging the slab or exerting any load on the roots or soil beneath. More details of this process will be required and these shall be secured by condition to confirm that the slab load bearing capacity is adequate before the piling rig is brought onto site. This is to ensure that there is an alternative proposal to bear the load of the piling rig in the event that the load bearing capacity of the existing slab is inadequate. Additional details have also been provided to confirm that all piling works are to be located outside of RPA and any requirements of underpinning are no longer needed where the existing ground floor slab level is retained over the RPA. Further investigations including trial pits are recommended to confirm the existing footings in locations where the slab is being lowered outside the RPAs. In addition to the details outlined above, a condition requiring details of how the trees will be protected during construction works shall be applied, and one requiring Arboricultural supervision from a registered (or a suitably experienced) consultant shall be added to ensure the suitable protection of the trees. Biodiversity The proposals include the creation of a number of biodiverse/brown roofs. There is also a green wall proposed to wrap around the corner of the north and west elevations. While the Arboricultural Officer considered that there may be issues with the proposed green wall and the relationship with the neighbouring trees (it may be possible that branches

Item No.

1

from T1 and T2 could come into conflict with the green wall and the trees are likely to cause heavy shading), the Officer is now satisfied that it is likely that the green walls can be maintained to a suitable level given that the applicant advises that this aspect is intended to have wall climbing plants which are not vigorously growing but are still shade tolerant for this location. Further details of the green walls and their maintenance shall be secured by condition. Objection has been received against the proposed green wall as the neighbours consider it would not be possible to maintain it given the location in an area with little sun. However, as noted above this concern has been explored during determination of the application and the Council is now satisfied a suitable wall can be placed in this location. This objection therefore cannot be upheld. With regards to the proposed brown roofs, the applicant advises that these would be developed to be appropriate for the immediate environment. Details of these biodiverse/brown roofs shall be secured by condition. Sustainability Policy 5.2 of the London Plan refers to minimising carbon dioxide emissions and states that development proposals should make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

1. Be Lean-Use less energy, 2. Be Clean-Supply energy efficiently, 3. Be Green-Use renewable energy.

Policy 5.2 E of the London Plan states that where specific targets cannot be fully achieved on site, any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. Policy S28 of the City Plan requires developments to incorporate exemplary standards of sustainable and inclusive urban design and architecture. Policy S39 of the City Plan states that major development should be designed to link and extend existing heat and energy networks in the vicinity, except where the City Council considers that it is not practical or viable to do so. The applicant has submitted an Energy and Sustainability Strategy. Measures to provide a resource-efficient building on the site include the provisions of efficient double glazing, increased insulation, use of passive design, highly efficient lighting with occupancy sensors and space heating and cooling for each room. The developer has provided information relating to the efficiencies with the structure of the new building. The development is anticipated to secure up to 39.1% CO2 savings, which is above the 35% target set by the London Plan, and this is welcomed. Renewable Energy The proposals include a number of solar panels located at roof level. These are welcomed and in accordance with City Plan Policy S40. They shall be secured by condition. Air Quality The Environmental Health Officer has assessed the applicant’s submitted information regarding air quality impacts form the proposal. National guidance states that, where

Item No.

1

impacts can be screened out there is no need to progress to a more detailed assessment. Additional road vehicle trips for the proposal are below the screening criteria therefore a detailed assessment is not required and the development “can be considered to have insignificant effects” on local air quality. Additionally, from the information provided the site should not be adversely impacted from background air quality. The proposed development meets the required air quality neutral benchmarks for both transport and building emissions. UKPN Substation There is an existing UKPN substation located at ground floor, next to 8-10 North Audley Street (Audley House). The proposal retains this substation in situ. Employment and Training City Plan Policy S19, Inclusive Local Economy and Employment, states that: “Where appropriate, new development will contribute towards initiatives that provide employment, training and skills development for local residents and ensure that local people and communities benefit from opportunities which are generated from development.” As of May 2019, contributions to support skills and training as well as affordable housing are required from applications exceeding 1000sqm net additional commercial floorspace or 50 or more residential units. For applications exceeding 10,000sqm, an Employment and Skills Plan is also required. Based on the total net uplift floorspace (1,322 sqm) and on the Inclusive Local Economy Policy (2019), this scheme needs to provide a Financial Contribution of £42,846.02. This shall be secured by the associated legal agreement.

8.8 Westminster City Plan

The City Council is currently working on a complete review of its City Plan. Informal consultation on the first draft of Westminster’s City Plan 2019-2040 took place between Monday 12 November 2018 and Friday 21 December 2018. Following this informal consultation, the draft plan has been revised and formal consultation is now being carried out under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 between Wednesday 19 June 2019 and Wednesday 31 July 2019. In the case of a draft local plan that has been published for consultation under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, including a second revision Regulation 19 plan, it remains at a pre-submission stage (i.e. has yet to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public) and therefore, having regard to the tests set out in para. 48 of the NPPF, it will generally attract very limited weight at this present time.

8.9 Neighbourhood Plans

The Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan includes policies on a range of matters including character, heritage, community uses, retail, offices, housing, cultural uses, transport and the environment. It has been through independent examination and supported at

Item No.

1

referendum on 31 October 2019, and therefore now forms part of Westminster’s statutory development plan. It will be used alongside the council’s own planning documents and the Mayor’s London Plan in determining planning applications in the Mayfair Neighbourhood Area. Where any matters relevant to the application subject of this report are directly affected by the policies contained within the neighbourhood plan, these are discussed elsewhere in this report.

The proposal is in general conformity with the MNP, where appropriate to the scale and nature of the development, unless otherwise stated. No objection has been received to the proposals from the Mayfair Neighbourhood Forum or other amenities societies in relation to these MNP policies

8.10 London Plan

This application raises no strategic issues.

8.11 National Policy/Guidance Considerations

The City Plan and UDP policies referred to in the consideration of this application are considered to be consistent with the NPPF unless stated otherwise. Further to the Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018, the City Council cannot impose a pre-commencement condition (a condition which must be discharged before works can start on site) on a planning permission without the written agreement of the applicant, unless the applicant fails to provide a substantive response within a 10 day period following notification of the proposed condition, the reason for the condition and justification for the condition by the City Council. During the course of this application a notice was served relating to the proposed imposition of a pre-commencement condition to secure the applicant’s adherence to the following:

- The City Councils Code of Construction Practice, - A Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeology to be submitted to and

approved by the local planning authority, - A detailed site investigation to find out if the building or land are contaminated

with dangerous material, - Two conditions required by Crossrail 1, and - Two conditions relating to protecting the trees during construction.

The applicant has agreed to the imposition of the conditions.

8.12 Planning Obligations The draft ‘Heads’ of agreement are proposed to cover the following issues:

a) Payment to Economy Team of £42,846.02, b) Payment to fund works to the highway at Providence Court to raise the redundant dropped kerb, and c) The costs of monitoring the S106 legal agreement.

Officers consider that these ‘heads’ satisfactorily address the City Council policies, the Supplementary Planning Guidance and the CIL Regulations.

Item No.

1

Based on the information provided, the estimated CIL payment is :

Mayoral CIL estimate (MCIL2) - £192,780.00 Westminster CIL estimate - £341,455.35 CIL total (estimate): £534,235.35

8.13 Environmental Impact Assessment

8.14 Other Issues

Basement The proposal includes the excavation of a single storey basement below the footprint of the site. The proposed basement development is compliant with the City Plan policy on basement development (Policy CM28.1). As the basement will be wholly beneath the footprint of the existing building, policy requirements regarding landscaping etc. are not applicable. The site is partially located in a flooding hotspot area and is also located in an area of special archaeological priority. Building Control have assessed the proposed basement, the accompanying structural method statement, the method of construction, underpinning and safeguarding of the neighbouring sites and confirmed that these are acceptable. They have confirmed that an investigation of existing structures and geology has been undertaken and found to be of sufficient detail. The existence of groundwater, including underground rivers, has been researched and the likelihood of local flooding or adverse effects on the water table has been found to be negligible. As discussed above, the impact of the proposed development and the new basement on surrounding trees and their roots has been heavily negotiated during this application. The revised scheme and smaller basement is acceptable in terms of the impact on these elements. The applicant has submitted the required Appendix A to indicate its compliance with the Code of Construction Practice. Compliance with this would be secured by condition. Archaeology Historic England have assessed the application and advised that a pre-commencement condition is required due to the site’s location in the Great Estates Area of Special Archaeological Priority and the possibility of causing harm to archaeological remains by excavating the basement. This condition will secure a written scheme of investigation demonstrating how construction will take place on the site in an appropriate manner respecting the possibility of archaeological remains. Construction Impact The Code of Construction Practice was published in July 2016 and is designed to monitor, control and manage construction impacts on sites throughout Westminster. It applies to all major developments from September 2016. The publication of the Code represents a fundamental shift in the way the City Council deals with the construction impacts of developments. Before September 2016,

Item No.

1

developments of this scale used legal agreements to fund the Environmental Inspectorate (EI) and required Site Environmental Management Plans to be submitted to and approved by the City Council. In recognition that there is a range of regulatory measures available to deal with construction impacts and that planning is the least effective and most cumbersome of these, the new approach is for a condition to be imposed requiring the applicant to provide evidence that any implementation of the scheme (by the applicant or any other party) will be bound by the Code. Furthermore, City Plan Policy S29 states that: “The development of major infrastructure projects and where appropriate, other projects with significant local impacts will need to mitigate, avoid or remedy environmental and local impacts, both in construction and operation, and this will be achieved through compliance with the relevant parts of the Council’s Code of Construction Practice.”

The proposal is included within the Code by virtue of it being a major application. Compliance with the Code will be secured by condition. As works have commenced on site for the previous permission, compliance with the Code will be secured through the legal agreement instead of by the standard condition.

Crossrail

The application site lies within the limits of land subject to consultation under the Crossrail Safeguarding Direction 2008. As such, Crossrail have advised the Council that the detailed design of the proposal development must take account the construction of Crossrail and instructed that a condition be applied to secure details of how foundation design, vibration and settlement will accommodate Crossrail structures.

Contaminated Land The Environmental Health Officer has advised that the site has been identified as an area which may be subject to contaminated land and that a contaminated land report should be provided for this planning application, which is also identified in the applicant’s structural methodology statement. This document can be secured via a pre-commencement condition.

Letters of Support Four letters of support for the application have been received from both neighbours and local businesses/business groups. These support the proposals on grounds including helping to maintain the reputation of the hotel, which in turn brings guests to the area which helps other local businesses, the occupier of the hotel to be extended is a good neighbour and has a history of managing their operations well, the guests of the hotel will require the same peace and quiet as local residents, hotel use is more appropriate than office use in this area of the West End and, that the existing building is outdated and inefficient and that this redevelopment which keeps original art-deco features is needed. These comments in support are noted.

Thames Water

Thames Water, whilst not objecting to the proposals, have made comments regarding water construction details and water pressure. These matters will be dealt with by Informatives, as appropriate.

Item No.

1

Community Engagement The applicant has submitted a Statement of Community Involvement with the application outlining how they have engaged with local residents and stakeholders prior to and during submission. The document lists activities including briefings with local Councillors, local development companies (New West End Company), residents societies and associations and hosting a two day public exhibition which was attended by 35 people, 18 of whom provided a mix of comments on the scheme. The applicant’s agent (as well as the case officer) has liaised with local residents during the determination of this application to discuss their concerns over the submitted application in greater detail.

(Please note: All the application drawings and other relevant documents and Background Papers are available to view on the Council’s website)

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT PLEASE CONTACT THE PRESENTING OFFICER: PAUL QUAYLE BY EMAIL AT pquayle@westminster.gov.uk

Item No.

1

9. KEY DRAWINGS

Existing/Demolition South (Front) Elevation

Proposed South (Front) Elevation

Item No.

1

Existing/Demolition North (Rear) Elevation

Proposed North (Rear) Elevation

Item No.

1

Existing/Demolition West (Side) Elevation

Proposed West (Side) Elevation

Item No.

1

Existing Section A-A

Proposed Section A-A

Item No.

1

Existing Section B-B

Proposed Section B-B

Item No.

1

Proposed Basement

Item No.

1

Existing/Demolition Ground Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Ground Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed First Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Second Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Third Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Fourth Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Fifth Floor

Item No.

1

Proposed Roof Plan

Item No.

1

DRAFT DECISION LETTER FOR 19/02548/FULL

Address: 2 Providence Court, London, W1K 6PR Proposal: Redevelopment behind retained facade with three additional floors and mechanical

plant within enclosure at roof level, excavation of new basement, to provide hotel use (Class C1) as an extension to the adjacent Beaumont Hotel.

Reference: 19/02548/FULL Plan Nos: Demolition Drawings:

A-PL-HW-500-01 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-02 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-03 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-04 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-05 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-06 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-07 Rev. 02 Proposed Drawings: A-PL-HW-0B1-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-100-01 Rev. 05 ; A-PL-HW-101-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-102-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-103-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-104-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-105-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-106-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-220-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-220-02 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-02 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-03 Rev. 04 Other Documents: Document titled "THE BEAUMONT HOTEL OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN", dated March 2020

Case Officer: Adam Jones Direct Tel. No. 07779431391

Recommended Condition(s) and Reason(s)

1

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings and other documents listed on this decision letter, and any drawings approved subsequently by the City Council as local planning authority pursuant to any conditions on this decision letter.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2

You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings, photos and manufacturers specifications of the facing materials you will use, including glazing, and elevations and roof plans annotated to show where the materials are to be located. You must not start work on the relevant part of the development until we have approved in writing what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work using the approved materials. (C26BD)

Reason: To make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character and appearance of this part 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

Item No.

1

DES 5 or DES 6 or both and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R26BE)

3

All new work to the outside of the building must match existing original work in terms of the choice of materials, method of construction and finished appearance. This applies unless differences are shown on the drawings we have approved or are required by conditions to this permission. (C26AA)

Reason: To make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character and appearance of this part 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 DES 5 or DES 6 or both and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R26BE)

4

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 make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character and appearance of this part 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 DES 5 or DES 6 or both and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R26BE)

Reason: As set out in ENV6 (2) and (6) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007, to ensure that the development is designed to prevent structural transmission of noise or vibration. (R48AA)

5

You must not put any machinery or associated equipment, ducts, tanks, satellite or radio aerials on the roof, except those shown on the approved drawings. (C26PA)

Reason: Because these would harm the appearance of the building, and would not meet S25 or S28, or both, of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and DES 5 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R26HC)

6

(1) Where noise emitted from the proposed plant and machinery will not contain tones or will not be intermittent, the 'A' weighted sound pressure level from the plant and machinery (including non-emergency auxiliary plant and generators) hereby permitted, when operating at its noisiest, shall not at any time exceed a value of 10 dB below the minimum external background noise, at a point 1 metre outside any window of any residential and other noise sensitive property, unless and until a fixed maximum noise level is approved by the City Council. The background level should be expressed in terms of the lowest LA90, 15 mins during the proposed hours of operation. The plant-specific noise level should be expressed as LAeqTm, and shall be representative of the plant operating at its maximum.

Item No.

1

(2) Where noise emitted from the proposed plant and machinery will contain tones or will be intermittent, the 'A' weighted sound pressure level from the plant and machinery (including non-emergency auxiliary plant and generators) hereby permitted, when operating at its noisiest, shall not at any time exceed a value of 15 dB below the minimum external background noise, at a point 1 metre outside any window of any residential and other noise sensitive property, unless and until a fixed maximum noise level is approved by the City Council. The background level should be expressed in terms of the lowest LA90, 15 mins during the proposed hours of operation. The plant-specific noise level should be expressed as LAeqTm, and shall be representative of the plant operating at its maximum. (3) Following installation of the plant and equipment, you may apply in writing to the City Council for a fixed maximum noise level to be approved. This is to be done by submitting a further noise report confirming previous details and subsequent measurement data of the installed plant, including a proposed fixed noise level for approval by the City Council. Your submission of a noise report must include: (a) A schedule of all plant and equipment that formed part of this application; (b) Locations of the plant and machinery and associated: ducting; attenuation and damping equipment; (c) Manufacturer specifications of sound emissions in octave or third octave detail; (d) The location of most affected noise sensitive receptor location and the most affected window of it; (e) Distances between plant & equipment and receptor location/s and any mitigating features that may attenuate the sound level received at the most affected receptor location; (f) Measurements of existing LA90, 15 mins levels recorded one metre outside and in front of the window referred to in (d) above (or a suitable representative position), at times when background noise is at its lowest during hours when the plant and equipment will operate. This acoustic survey to be conducted in conformity to BS 7445 in respect of measurement methodology and procedures; (g) The lowest existing L A90, 15 mins measurement recorded under (f) above; (h) Measurement evidence and any calculations demonstrating that plant and equipment complies with the planning condition; (i) The proposed maximum noise level to be emitted by the plant and equipment.

Reason: Because existing external ambient noise levels exceed WHO Guideline Levels, and as set out in ENV 6 (1), (6) and (8) and ENV 7 (A)(1) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007, so that the noise environment of people in noise sensitive properties is protected, including the intrusiveness of tonal and impulsive sounds; and as set out in S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016), by contributing to reducing excessive ambient noise levels. Part (3) is included so that applicants may ask subsequently for a fixed maximum noise level to be approved in case ambient noise levels reduce at any time after implementation of the planning permission. (R46AB)

7

No vibration shall be transmitted to adjoining or other premises and structures through the building structure and fabric of this development as to cause a vibration dose value of greater than 0.4m/s (1.75) 16 hour day-time nor 0.26 m/s (1.75) 8 hour night-time as

Item No.

1

defined by BS 6472 (2008) in any part of a residential and other noise sensitive property.

Reason: As set out in ENV6 (2) and (6) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007, to ensure that the development is designed to prevent structural transmission of noise or vibration. (R48AA)

8

You must put up the plant screen shown on the approved drawings before you use the machinery. You must then maintain it in the form shown for as long as the machinery remains in place. (C13DA)

Reason: To protect neighbouring residents from noise and vibration nuisance, as set out in S29 and S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 6 and ENV 7 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R13AC)

9

The design and structure of the development shall be of such a standard that it will protect residents within the same building or in adjoining buildings from noise and vibration from the development, so that they are not exposed to noise levels indoors of more than 35 dB LAeq 16 hrs daytime and of more than 30 dB LAeq 8 hrs in bedrooms at night.

Reason: As set out in ENV6 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007, and the related Policy Application at section 9.76, in order to ensure that design, structure and acoustic insulation of the development will provide sufficient protection for residents of the same or adjoining buildings from noise and vibration from elsewhere in the development. (R49BA)

10

You must apply to us for approval of details of a supplementary acoustic report demonstrating that the plant will comply with the Council's noise criteria as set out in Condition(s) 6, 7 and 9 of this permission. You must not start work on this part of the development until we have approved what you have sent us.

Reason: Because existing external ambient noise levels exceed WHO Guideline Levels, and as set out in ENV 6 (1), (6) and (8) and ENV 7 (A)(1) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007, so that the noise environment of people in noise sensitive properties is protected, including the intrusiveness of tonal and impulsive sounds; and as set out in S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016), by contributing to reducing excessive ambient noise levels. (R51AB)

11

Other than in the case of emergency, the access to the hotel for resident and non-resident guests shall be via the main entrance on Balderton Street.

Reason: To protect neighbouring residents from noise nuisance, as set out in S24, S29 and S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 6 and ENV 7 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R13FB)

Item No.

1

12

With the exception of the restriction as set out in Condition 11 of this permission, you must carry out the measures included in your operational management plan dated March 202 at all times that the hotel is in use.

Reason: To make sure that the use will not cause nuisance for people in the area. This is as set out in S23, S29 and S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and TACE 2 and ENV 6 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.

13

All windows in the north elevation (as shown on approved drawing A-PL-HW-270-03 Rev. 04) must be fixed shut and retained as such for the life of the development.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring properties, as set out in S29 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 13 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R21AC)

14

You must apply to us for approval of a high resolution photo sample and manufacturers specification of the translucent glazing for the west elevation windows. You must not start any work on these parts of the development until we have approved what you have sent us and must then carry out the work according to these details. You must then maintain it in the form shown for the life of the development.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring properties, as set out in S29 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 13 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R21AC)

15

You must not use the flat roofs of the building for sitting out or for any other purpose. You can however use the roof to escape in an emergency or for maintenance.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring properties. This is as set out in S29 and S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 6 and ENV 13 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R21BC)

16

The maximum length of stay for any guest staying in the extension to the hotel (Class C1) shall not exceed 89 days.

Reason: To make sure that the use will not cause nuisance for people in the area. This is as set out in S23, S29 and S32 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and TACE 2 and ENV 6 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.

17

You must apply to us for approval of details of secure cycle storage for the hotel use. You must not start any work on this part of the development until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then provide the cycle storage in line with the approved details prior to occupation. You must not use the cycle storage for any other purpose.

Item No.

1

Reason: To provide cycle parking spaces for people using the development as set out in Policy 6.9 (Table 6.3) of the London Plan 2016 (R22FA)

18

The ground floor courtyards shown on approved drawing A-PL-HW-100-01 Rev. 05 may not be used for sitting out in or for any other purpose. They may only be used to escape in an emergency and for maintenance purposes.

Reason: To protect the privacy and environment of people in neighbouring properties, as set out in S29 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 13 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R21AC)

19

Pre Commencement Condition. You must apply to us for approval of a method statement explaining the measures you will take to protect the trees on and close to the site. You must not start any demolition, site clearance or building work, and you must not take any equipment, machinery or materials for the development onto the site, until we have approved in writing what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work according to the approved details. (C31CC)

Reason: To make sure that the trees on the site are adequately protected during building works. This is as set out in S38 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 (A), ENV 16 and ENV 17 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R31AC)

20

Pre Commencement Condition. You must arrange for an arboricultural consultant who is registered with the Arboricultural Association, or who has the level of qualifications or experience (or both) needed to be registered, to supervise the development. You must apply to us for our approval of the details of such supervision including: -identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel. -induction and personnel awareness of arboricultural matters. -supervision schedule, indicating frequency and methods of site visiting and record keeping -procedures for dealing with variations and incidents. Your proposals must include the requirement for the arboricultural consultant to send us a written memo within 5 days of each visit. You must not start any work until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then adhere to the approved supervision schedule.

Reason: To make sure that the trees on the site are adequately protected during building works. This is as set out in S38 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 (A), ENV 16 and ENV 17 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R31AC)

Item No.

1

21 You must provide confirmation that the retained ground floor slab is adequate to bear the weight of the piling rig, by sending us details of the methods you have used to test the slab, and the findings. If the slab does not have sufficient load bearing capacity you must provide additional ground protection or locate the piling rig outside the root protection areas of the trees and you must submit these details to us for approval. You must not bring the piling rig onto the site until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work according to the approved details.

Reason: To make sure that the trees on the site are adequately protected during building works. This is as set out in S38 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 (A), ENV 16 and ENV 17 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R31AC)

22

You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings and a bio-diversity management plan in relation to the green wall and biodiverse/brown roofs to include construction method, layout, species and maintenance regime. You must not commence works on the relevant part of the development until we have approved what you have sent us. You must carry out this work according to the approved details and thereafter retain and maintain in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: To increase the biodiversity of the environment, as set out in S38 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 17 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R43FB)

23

You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings and manufacturers specification of the porous surfacing for the rear ground floor courtyard. 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 drawings and maintain it in the form approved for the life of the development.

Reason: To protect the trees and the character and appearance of this part of the Mayfair Conservation Area. This is as set out in S25, S28 and S38 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and ENV 16, ENV 17, DES 1 (A) and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R31DC)

24

Pre Commencement Condition. No demolition or development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, which shall include the statement of significance and research objectives, and A. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works,

Item No.

1

B. Where appropriate, details of a programme for delivering related positive public benefits, C. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI.

Reason: To avoid damage to any archaeological remains on site as set out in S25 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 11 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R32AC)

25

Pre Commencement Condition. Prior to the commencement of any: (a) Demolition, and/or (b) Earthworks/piling and/or (c) Construction On site you must apply to us for our written approval of evidence to demonstrate that any implementation of the scheme hereby approved, by the applicant or any other party, will be bound by the council's Code of Construction Practice. Such evidence must take the form of the relevant completed Appendix A checklist from the Code of Construction Practice, signed by the applicant and approved by the Council's Environmental Sciences Team, which constitutes an agreement to comply with the Code of Construction Practice and requirements contained therein. Commencement of the relevant stage of demolition, earthworks/piling or construction cannot take place until the City Council as local planning authority has issued its written approval through submission of details prior to each stage of commencement. (C11CD)

Reason: To protect the environment of residents and the area generally as set out in S29 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and STRA 25, TRANS 23, ENV 5 and ENV 6 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R11AC)

26

None of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until detailed design and construction method statements for all of the ground floor structures, foundations and basements and for any other structures below ground level, including piling, any other temporary or permanent installations and for site investigations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which:- (i) Accommodate the location and of the Crossrail structures including temporary works, (ii) Mitigate the effects on Crossrail, of ground movement arising from development

Reason: To meet the requirements of a direction made in connection with the CrossRail Project by the Secretary of State for Transport under Articles 10 (3), 14 (1) and 27 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and as set out in S41 and S43 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and TRANS 5 (E) and para 4.68 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R33AC)

27

None of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning

Item No.

1

Authority to include arrangements to secure that, during any period when concurrent construction is taking place of both the permitted development and of the Crossrail structures and tunnels in or adjacent to the site of the approved development, the construction of the Crossrail structures and tunnels is not impeded.

Reason: To meet the requirements of a direction made in connection with the CrossRail Project by the Secretary of State for Transport under Articles 10 (3), 14 (1) and 27 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and as set out in S41 and S43 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and TRANS 5 (E) and para 4.68 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R33AC)

28

Pre Commencement Condition. You must carry out a detailed site investigation to find out if the building or land are contaminated with dangerous material, to assess the contamination that is present, and to find out if it could affect human health or the environment. This site investigation must meet the water, ecology and general requirements outlined in 'Contaminated Land Guidance for Developers submitting planning applications' - produced by Westminster City Council in January 2018. You must apply to us for approval of the following investigation reports. You must apply to us and receive our written approval for phases 1, 2 and 3 before any demolition or excavation work starts, and for phase 4 when the development has been completed but before it is occupied. Phase 1: Desktop study - full site history and environmental information from the public records. Phase 2: Site investigation - to assess the contamination and the possible effect it could have on human health, pollution and damage to property. Phase 3: Remediation strategy - details of this, including maintenance and monitoring to protect human health and prevent pollution. Phase 4: Validation report - summarises the action you have taken during the development and what action you will take in the future, if appropriate. (C18AA)

Reason: To make sure that any contamination under the site is identified and treated so that it does not harm anyone who uses the site in the future. This is as set out in STRA 34 and ENV 8 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007. (R18AA)

29

You must not carry out demolition work unless it is part of the complete development of the site. You must carry out the demolition and development without interruption and according to the drawings we have approved. (C29BB)

Reason: To maintain the character of the Mayfair Conservation Area as set out in S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and DES 9 (B) of our Unitary

Item No.

1

Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007 and Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. (R29AC)

30

You must provide, maintain and retain the following energy efficiency measures before you start to use any part of the development, as set out in your application. Solar panels at roof level You must not remove any of these features. (C44AA)

Reason: To make sure that the development provides the environmental sustainability features included in your application as set out in S28 or S40, or both, of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016). (R44AC)

Informative(s):

1

In dealing with this application the City Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in Westminster's City Plan (November 2016), Unitary Development Plan, neighbourhood plan (where relevant), supplementary planning documents, planning briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre application advice service, in order to ensure that applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. In addition, where appropriate, further guidance was offered to the applicant at the validation stage.

2

Conditions 6, 7, 9 and 10 control noise from the approved machinery. It is very important that you meet the conditions and we may take legal action if you do not. You should make sure that the machinery is properly maintained and serviced regularly. (I82AA)

3

You are advised to permanently mark the plant/ machinery hereby approved with the details of this permission (including date decision and planning reference number). This will assist in future monitoring of the equipment by the City Council if and when complaints are received.

4

With regards to condition 24, The written scheme of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a suitably qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice in accordance with Historic England's Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. This condition is exempt from deemed discharge under schedule 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

5

You are encouraged to join the nationally recognised Considerate Constructors Scheme. This commits those sites registered with the Scheme to be considerate and good neighbours, as well as clean, respectful, safe, environmentally conscious, responsible and accountable. For more

Item No.

1

information please contact the Considerate Constructors Scheme directly on 0800 783 1423, siteenquiries@ccscheme.org.uk or visit www.ccscheme.org.uk.

6

With reference to condition 25 please refer to the Council's Code of Construction Practice at (www.westminster.gov.uk/code-construction-practice). You will be required to enter into an agreement with the Council appropriate to this scale of development and to pay the relevant fees prior to starting work. Your completed and signed Checklist A (for Level 1 and Level 2 developments) or B (for basements) and all relevant accompanying documents outlined in Checklist A or B, e.g. the full Site Environmental Management Plan (Levels 1 and 2) or Construction Management Plan (basements), must be submitted to the City Council's Environmental Sciences team (environmentalsciences2@westminster.gov.uk) at least 40 days prior to commencement of works (which may include some pre-commencement works and demolition. The checklist must be countersigned by them before you apply to the local planning authority to discharge the above condition. You are urged to give this your early attention as the relevant stages of demolition, earthworks/piling or construction cannot take place until the City Council as local planning authority has issued its written approval of each of the relevant parts, prior to each stage of commencement. Where you change your plans after we have discharged the condition, you must re-apply and submit new details for consideration before you start work. Please note that where separate contractors are appointed for different phases of the project, you may apply to partially discharge the condition by clearly stating in your submission which phase of the works (i.e. (a) demolition, (b) excavation or (c) construction or a combination of these) the details relate to. However please note that the entire fee payable to the Environmental Sciences team must be paid on submission of the details relating to the relevant phase. Appendix A must be signed and countersigned by Environmental Sciences prior to the submission of the approval of details of the above condition.

7

The construction manager should keep residents and others informed about unavoidable disturbance such as noise, dust and extended working hours, and disruption of traffic. Site neighbours should be given clear information well in advance, preferably in writing, for example by issuing regular bulletins about site progress.

8

Please make sure that the street number and building name (if applicable) are clearly displayed on the building. This is a condition of the London Building Acts (Amendments) Act 1939, and there are regulations that specify the exact requirements. For further information on how to make an application and to read our guidelines on street naming and numbering, please visit our website: www.westminster.gov.uk/street-naming-numbering (I54AB)

Item No.

1

9 The Developer is recommended to assess and consider mitigating the possible effects of noise and vibration arising from the operation of Crossrail (the future Elizabeth Line) within tunnels and nearby structures

10

Condition 26 and 27 meets the requirements of the 'safeguarding' directions made by the Department of Transport in relation to the CrossRail Project. If you have any questions about this project, please write to: Crossrail Limited 25 Canada Square London E14 5LQ. Tel: 0345 602 3813 (I56AA)

11 We recommend all hoteliers to join the Westminster Considerate Hoteliers scheme and to support the Considerate Hoteliers Environmental Charter. This aims to promote good environmental practice in developing and managing hotels. For more information, please contact: Considerate Group 2 Eastbourne Terrace, London W2 6LG E-mail: jk@considerategroup.com Phone: 020 3865 2052

12

Please contact Thames Water with any questions or concerns regarding discharge of waste water or sewerage from the site. Should there be the intention as part of these proposals to discharge ground water to the public network, this would require a Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Permit enquiries should be directed to Thames Water's Risk Management Team by telephoning 02035779483 or by emailing wwqriskmanagement@thameswater.co.uk. Application forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk/wastewaterquality

Please note: the full text for informatives can be found in the Council’s Conditions, Reasons & Policies handbook, copies of which can be found in the Committee Room whilst the meeting is in progress, and on the Council’s website.

Item No.

1

DRAFT DECISION LETTER FOR 19/02549/LBC

Address: 8 Balderton Street, London, W1K 6TF, Proposal: Creation of internal openings on all levels to link building to 2 Providence Court and

associated works. Plan Nos: Demolition Drawings:

A-PL-HW-500-01 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-02 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-03 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-04 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-05 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-06 Rev. 02 ; A-PL-HW-500-07 Rev. 02 Proposed Drawings: A-PL-HW-0B1-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-100-01 Rev. 05 ; A-PL-HW-101-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-102-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-103-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-104-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-105-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-106-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-220-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-220-02 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-01 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-02 Rev. 04 ; A-PL-HW-270-03 Rev. 04

Case Officer: Adam Jones Direct Tel. No. 07779431391

Recommended Condition(s) and Reason(s) or Reason(s) for Refusal:

1

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings and other documents listed on this decision letter, and any drawings approved subsequently by the City Council as local planning authority pursuant to any conditions on this decision letter.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Informative(s):

1

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING CONDITIONAL LISTED BUILDING CONSENT - In reaching the decision to grant listed building consent with conditions, the City Council has had regard to the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2016, Westminster's City Plan (November 2016), and the City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan adopted January 2007, as well as relevant supplementary planning guidance, representations received and all other material considerations. The City Council decided that the proposed works would not harm the special architectural and historic interest of this listed building. In reaching this decision the following were of particular relevance: S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan and DES 10 including paras 10.130 to 10.146 of the Unitary Development Plan, and paragraph 2.4 of our Supplementary Planning Guidance: Repairs and Alterations to Listed Buildings.