Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing hotel buildings and erection of a part 3, part 4 and part 5 storey 226 bed aparthotel plus basement accommodation comprising guestrooms and ancillary facilities within a 5-storey basement (situated below the part-basement lower ground floor), together with soft and hard landscaping, servicing, cycle storage and refuse and recycling facilities

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement (Heads of Terms as set out within the report), any other planning obligations considered necessary by the Head of Planning and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Human Resources.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above and delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the report.

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any  such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

That, if the legal agreement has not been completed by the statutory determination date for this application (including determination dates set through agreement), the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

Ms.Victoria McDonagh (Area Team Leader) introduced the report and answered members’ questions.  Members noted that the key difference between the current proposal and that which was previously granted consent was an increase of 98 rooms from 128 to 226, much of which had been achieved through a loss of the ancillary parts of the hotel.  She continued that the restaurant, gym and leisure centre was no longer proposed within the revised development and that the resulting double height had been subdivided to create two normal height basement levels of the aparthotel accommodation.  As such condition 4 was no longer required.  She referenced the supplementary report and drew Members’ attention to; letters of support received since the publication of the committee report, mainly from local businesses and the review of external lighting strategy and landscaping plans.  In light of the reviews, she recommended amendments to conditions 19 and 20 respectively.

Messrs Richard Quelch and Herbert Lui (applicant’s agent and architect, respectively) addressed the Committee.  Members heard that the proposal would provide an opportunity to increase the number of hotel rooms within the envelope of the scheme and enhance tourism in the Borough.

During the ensuing discussion, members invited the officer to clarify issues relating to natural lighting below ground level, consultation with and responses from Thames Water Authority and Highways.  Ms McDonagh stated that as well as lightwells from the frontage, the provision of central courtyard to the basement would allow natural lighting to the basement.  She however added that condition 20 would be strengthened although as a non-residential building, there was no requirement for outlook to be provided.  Thames Water Authority had no comment other than piling which has been conditioned.  She clarified that although coach parking was not a material planning consideration as the application was for an apart hotel, coach management plan in place would ensure there would be enough room to accommodate a coach if necessary.

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to the removal of recommended condition 4 and revisions to conditions 19 and 20 as set out in the supplementary report.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6; Against 0; Abstention 0).