Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jas Dhot and from Councillor Tony Gill with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting for the latter.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 29 March 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items were marked in Part I and would be considered in public.

Redevelopment of the site to erect a part 10 storey and part 11 storey residential led development comprising 127 flats and residents lounge with associated access (including Public Access Improvements) and landscaping works following demolition of existing light industrial building (Amended plans submitted 17/03/2023)

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Redevelopment of the site to erect a part 10 storey and part 11 storey residential led development comprising 127 flats and residents lounge with associated access (including Public Access Improvements) and landscaping works following demolition of existing light industrial building (Amended plans submitted 17/03/2023).

Officers presented the application noting a typographical error on page 15 of the agenda pack which cited 127 flats rather than 128. Members heard that the application had been previously approved at the Major Applications Planning Committee on 27 July 2022 subject to minor changes to conditions, completion of the S106 legal agreement and Stage 2 referral to the GLA. The GLA had since confirmed that it could not validate any Stage 2 referrals for developments that did not conform to the pending changes to the Fire Safety Regulations due to be adopted in summer 2023. In response to this, the applicant had submitted revised plans to address GLA concerns; these plans included a connecting corridor between each core to ensure there were two means of escape to meet fire regulations. There was no change to the agreed mass and bulk of the development and the application was recommended for approval.

Members raised no objections to the proposal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.  

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii)) at ground and first floor level.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the Major Applications Planning Committee.

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)ii) and E(g)iii) at ground and first floor level.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval.

Members raised concerns regarding the parking provision at the hotel noting that only 32 car parking spaces for the hotel and 7 for commercial use were proposed hence it was likely that guests would seek to park on surrounding streets. It was felt that this would serve to exacerbate parking stress around such a busy junction.

The Committee heard that parking in the streets would be inconvenient for guests and was therefore unlikely to be an issue. The hotel would be predominantly ‘car free’ as two minibuses would be available to pick guests up from nearby stations and from Heathrow. A robust Travel Plan was proposed, and sustainable travel would be encouraged.

Members raised further concerns regarding odours linked to the proposed kitchenettes and microwaves in one section of the hotel. It was felt that the microwaves were a fire risk, and the inclusion of kitchenettes could facilitate alternative use as an HMO in the future. A maximum 30-day stay limit or a Condition limiting stays to no more than 90 days were proposed by Members.

In response to this, the Committee was informed that the kitchenettes would not be used for primary cooking and there was nothing to suggest intended HMO use at present. With regards to odours, Members were advised that a mechanically ventilated system would be incorporated to address this. A 30-day stay limit could not be defended at appeal as it conflicted with the agreed London wide limit of 90 days. It was confirmed that the Hotel Management Strategy would permit guests to stay for more than 90 days. However, under the terms of the Strategy, duration of stay would be monitored enabling officers to assess whether the hotel had moved into another use class. If necessary, enforcement action could then be taken. Members requested that the Hotel Management Strategy be updated to add a requirement for six monthly reviews to assess number / duration of stays.

The Legal Advisor reminded Members that the Planning Committee did not have jurisdiction over how a business was run – this was a matter for the management. The Council could attempt to address Members’ concerns by means of the Hotel Management Strategy and by strengthening conditions such as those related to fire safety. A 30-day stay would not be enforceable, and the suggested 90-day maximum stay would be difficult to monitor given resourcing restraints.

Members enquired whether it would be possible to ask the applicant to part-fund a staff member to monitor the duration of stays at the hotel. The Legal Advisor indicated that it would be difficult to estimate the cost of this.

Given the proliferation of TfL  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.