The Committee approved the planning application for the redevelopment of 1 Victoria Street and the application for 1-4 Eaton Mews West. The Committee also approved the minutes of the meeting held on 6 August 2024, and agreed to amend the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2024 to reflect that a decision was made on the Chair's casting vote.

1 Victoria Street

The most significant topic was the planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site at 1 Victoria Street. The applicant, Stanhope PLC, sought permission to demolish the existing 1960s office building above ground level and construct a new building comprising ground and nine upper floors for use as retail, restaurant, leisure, medical and office uses, as well as associated public realm improvements and landscaping.

The scheme had originally been designed to retain a substantial amount of the building, but following structural surveys, the applicant was seeking permission to demolish the existing building above ground level whilst retaining the existing basement structure. This revised strategy proposed to retain 52% of the existing structure by volume.

The Victoria Neighbourhood Forum objected to the amount of demolition proposed, arguing:

The proposals should more carefully follow and give regard to the principles by which Westminster Council's retrofit policy is observed and applied.

The applicant's representative, Helena Morris, argued that the original proposals to retain the western wing of the building above ground had been found to be unviable as:

Extensive site investigations were undertaken by the applicant’s team to assess the strength and condition of the existing structure, and its suitability for reuse. From these investigations the applicant advises the existing superstructure (the pre-cast Omnia planks) are unsuitable for retention due to high chloride levels, carbonation and progressive corrosion in the steel reinforcement bars which will continue to cause further and progressive corrosion in the future. Analysis by the applicant’s material specialists estimates that the retained superstructure would reach failure point in approximately 47 years.

The Committee were concerned that the applicant had not considered all of the options to retain more of the existing structure above ground. However, the applicant's structural engineer, Hazel Joseph, of AHMM architects, argued that they had explored and discounted a range of mitigation measures including carbon fibre strengthening, applying a cementitious render, and applying a corrosion inhibitor, because:

if the Omnia planks were retained, the carbon cost of the building over a life of 60 years from today would be higher compared to the proposed Omnia replacement scheme undertaken now since after 47 years a large portion of the building would need to be demolished, replaced and tied into the remainder.

The Committee agreed with officers that the applicant had demonstrated that they had fully explored the options for retaining the existing structure and agreed to approve the scheme.

The Committee also raised concerns about the loss of daylight to the flats at Abbey Orchard Street Estate. The applicant's daylight and sunlight assessment identified that there would be losses of daylight to a number of flats that look onto the application site and that a significant number of the windows affected serve bedrooms and kitchens.

The Committee sought reassurance from officers that the amenity impact to the residents of the Abbey Orchard Estate was acceptable. The officers highlighted the layout of the flats, explaining that the living rooms face south over a landscaped courtyard, in the opposite direction to the application site, and so will be unaffected by the proposed development. Officers also highlighted that the existing windows to the kitchens and bedrooms of the affected flats currently look out over an unsightly service yard, and that the proposed development would replace this with an attractive, landscaped street scene.

The Committee agreed that the impact was acceptable.

The Committee also received a representation from Charlie Baxter, a member of the public, who objected to the application on the grounds of sustainability. Mr Baxter argued that:

The demolition and subsequent construction activities would contribute to increased carbon emissions and environmental degradation, which is counterproductive to the efforts of achieving net zero targets.

The Committee agreed to approve the scheme with conditions to require the applicant to submit an updated Whole Life Carbon Assessment¹ to demonstrate how the development has been designed to minimize embodied carbon emissions, and an updated Circular Economy Statement to demonstrate how the development will meet or exceed the GLA targets for recycled content.

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable workspace, a financial contribution towards the Council's Carbon Offset Fund, 'Be Seen' energy monitoring, a financial contribution towards local employment and skills initiatives, an Employment and Skills Training Plan, a contribution to all highway works surrounding the site, and a Walkways Agreement to secure public access over the new public space to the east of the building.

1-4 Eaton Mews West

The second item on the agenda was an application for the redevelopment of 1-4 Eaton Mews West. The applicant, Leconfield, sought permission to demolish the existing buildings behind the retained facade and erect a part three, part four-storey building to provide six residential units and office accommodation.

The Committee received a representation from Monica Lucas, Chair of the Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum, in support of the application. Ms Lucas argued:

Overall we consider the proposal for 1-4 Eaton Mews West to be a well-considered scheme which delivers significant regeneration benefits to this part of Belgravia in a sensitive manner. It is a good example of the kind of development that we envisaged in the Belgravia Neighbourhood Plan, and in particular Policies BEL3, BEL12, BEL14 and BEL15

The Committee also received representations from three neighbours. Jeremy Courtenay-Stamp spoke in support of the application, arguing:

We feel that the application reflects what we anticipated from a redevelopment of this site, both as immediate neighbours and as residents of the Belgravia Conservation Area.

Siobhan Gallagher, who lives at 91 Elizabeth Street, raised an objection to the location of the refuse bins for House 06 and to the loss of daylight to her lower ground floor kitchen. However, she concluded that she:

...broadly welcome[s] the Leconfield proposal

The Committee agreed with the neighbours that the location of the refuse bins for House 06 was inappropriate and asked officers if this could be resolved. The officers advised that the location of the refuse bins had been amended following consultation with neighbours and were now considered acceptable. They also highlighted that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment had shown that the loss of daylight to Ms Gallagher's kitchen was acceptable.

The final representation was made by a neighbour, who did not want their name recorded in the minutes, who expressed concern about the impact of the development on an oak tree located in the rear garden of 10 Chester Row. The neighbour argued:

There is a real risk that the future owner of the house closest to the tree will make applications to pollard it and eventually fell it.

The Committee agreed with the neighbour that the relationship between House 01 and the oak tree was problematic. However, officers explained that the oak tree predates the designation of the Belgravia Conservation Area and so is not a protected tree.

Councillor Jim Glen, who is a trustee of The Westminster Tree Trust, argued:

I feel the issue with the oak tree does raise a serious concern. I would not like to see it eventually come down.

However, the Committee agreed that the benefits of the proposed development, which included five family-sized homes, outweighed the harm to the tree, particularly as it was not a protected tree, and agreed to grant planning permission.

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a carbon offset contribution and to restrict the eligibility for parking permits for two of the six homes proposed.