The meeting includes a number of significant planning applications including 2 applications for the Grade II* listed Alexandra Road Estate in Kilburn, a significant application for a hospital extension at the Royal Free Hospital in Gospel Oak, a large application for a mixed-use development on Shaftesbury Avenue in Holborn & Covent Garden, and an application for the refurbishment and extension of a building on Tottenham Court Road and Alfred Place in Bloomsbury. There is also a small advertisement consent application for 147-151 Haverstock Hill in Belsize.

Alexandra Road Estate

The report pack includes a set of four applications for works to the Grade II* listed Alexandra Road Estate: two for the heating system (refs 2023/5338/P and 2024/0091/L) and two for the windows (refs 2023/5339/P and 2024/0286/L).

These relate to works that were originally proposed in 2020, but were only implemented in two pilot flats. A similar scheme was proposed and granted in 2020, but the current proposal includes new cold-water storage tanks in the basement car park.

The existing communal heating system uses gas boilers that were installed in 2014 and have a life expectancy of 10-15 years. They are proposed to be retained. The existing distribution pipework and the heating coils embedded in the party walls of the flats date back to when the estate was constructed in the 1970s and are in very poor condition. The applicant, Camden Council, wishes to replace these with a new pipework system, two new sub-plant rooms and new heat interface units (HIUs) within each flat.

The new HIUs are proposed to be fitted within existing cupboards in each flat. In flats where those cupboards, or their sliding doors, are damaged, Camden Council proposes to make them good.

The Council’s Capital Works Team say that the new system would reduce energy consumption by around 30% compared with the current system and reduce CO2 emissions by 60%.

The new windows are proposed to be vacuum double glazed units fitted within the existing Douglas fir window frames. They would have a u-value of 0.4 W/m2K.

The report pack suggests that a condition would be added to require a survey of the existing window frames before any work is carried out, to check whether they are suitable for the new glazed units.

Because these are Council owned schemes, any agreement with the Council about the works would be in the form of a “Shadow s106 Agreement”, which the Council would agree with itself.

The shadow s106 for the heating application (refs 2023/5338/P and 2024/0091/L) requires the following:

A plan to be submitted to show how the owner is intending to secure the full implementation of the works to ensure consistency, uniformity and completeness across the applications.

Retention of Levitt Bernstein architects who are a suitably qualified and experienced architectural practice.

The works approved as part of these applications are linked to planning application ref 2023/5339/P and listed building consent 2024/0286/L and shall be implemented simultaneously.

The shadow s106 for the windows application (refs 2023/5339/P and 2024/0286/L) requires the same:

• A plan to be submitted to show how the owner is intending to secure the full implementation of the works to ensure consistency, uniformity and completeness across the applications • Retention of Levitt Bernstein architects who are a suitably qualified and experienced architectural practice. • The works approved as part of these applications are linked to planning application ref 2023/5338/P and listed building consent 2024/0091/L and shall be implemented simultaneously.

The officer’s report recommends approval for both sets of applications.

There were a very large number of objections to the proposals from local residents and groups, with over 500 comments received for each of the applications. These were submitted by:

• Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate Tenants and Residents’ Association
• Alexandra and Ainsworth Leaseholders Group
• 20th Century Society
• DOCOMOMO UK

The main areas of concern relate to:

• Heritage – there are concerns that the proposed works, especially the replacement of the heating system, will cause irreversible harm to the architectural significance and design intentions of the Grade II* listed buildings.
• Sustainability – many residents feel that the proposals do not go far enough in terms of improving energy efficiency and that they should include a move away from gas to more sustainable options such as air source heat pumps and better insulation.
• Quality of life – there are concerns that the works, which will take place within all of the homes on the estate, will cause extreme disruption to local residents. Concerns have also been raised as to how the works will impact those residents who are more vulnerable (including those with protected characteristics).
• Condensation and mould – residents are concerned that switching off the background heating provided by the heating coils could lead to the development of mould.
• Maintenance – residents feel that the existing heating system has not been adequately maintained and that rather than investing in a replacement heating system, the Council should be focusing on properly maintaining the existing system.
• Cost – leaseholders are concerned about the high cost of the proposed works and how these costs are calculated.

Royal Free Hospital

The report pack includes an application (ref 2024/4642/P) for a two-storey extension above the existing access road at the Royal Free Hospital. The extension, which would be supported by slender columns, would provide an extension to the hospital’s existing hybrid theatres and provide 1,652 sqm of new floorspace. The extension would be clad to match the existing cladding of a pre-existing extension on the site, which was granted in 2014.

The officer’s report recommends approval.

There are 16 objections from local residents, and an objection from the Hampstead Hill School, the Pond Street Residents Association, and from Councillor Stark.

The main issues raised relate to traffic. Residents are concerned that the development would worsen traffic in the area, particularly on Pond Street, which they say is often congested, and Hampstead Hill Gardens, which is used as a rat run. They say the problem has become worse since the Pears Building was granted planning permission in 2016.

151 Shaftesbury Avenue

The report pack includes an application (ref 2024/2450/P) for the refurbishment and extension of a nine-storey building at 151 Shaftesbury Avenue. The proposals involve the demolition of the existing rooftop plant level and its replacement with two new floors, infill extensions at levels 5 to 8, the retention of existing office floorspace and a partial change of use at ground floor and basement level to provide a bar/drinking establishment and other commercial uses.

The proposals would increase the amount of office floorspace by 651 sqm to 7,214 sqm and increase the amount of commercial floorspace at ground floor level by 112 sqm to 309 sqm.

The officer’s report recommends approval.

There are objections from the Covent Garden Community Association and a number of local residents. The key issues raised are:

• Amenity – residents are concerned that the proposed commercial uses at ground floor level, including the new bar, may cause noise and disturbance. There are also concerns about the proposed roof terraces, which residents feel will lead to overlooking and noise.
• Transport – The CGCA has raised concerns as to the level of servicing that would be required for the ground floor commercial units, suggesting it will result in an increase in delivery and servicing trips. Residents have also commented that New Compton Street is too narrow to accommodate large delivery vehicles and that there is no loading bay at the rear of the building as claimed in the submitted documentation.
• Design – There are concerns that the increased massing of the building at the upper floor levels is not appropriate for the site and would cause overlooking and overshadowing to residents at Pendrell House.

The Courtyard, 1-7 Alfred Place

The report pack includes an application (ref 2024/4840/P) for the refurbishment and extension of a commercial building on Tottenham Court Road, Store Street and Alfred Place. The proposals involve the partial demolition of existing structures on the site, a roof extension and a rear infill extension. The proposals would retain all the existing office floorspace (4,740sqm) and create 1,876sqm of new floorspace to provide a total of 6,616sqm. The proposals would also reduce the existing Class E floorspace by 888sqm, resulting in a net gain of 988sqm across the site.

The officer’s report recommends approval.

Objections have been received from the Charlotte Street Association and the Bloomsbury Association, and comments from the Bloomsbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

The key issues raised relate to the impact of the roof extension, particularly in relation to its design, height and massing.

147-151 Haverstock Hill

The report pack includes an application (ref 2024/3704/A) for advertisement consent at 147-151 Haverstock Hill. The applicant, Leyland SDM, is seeking consent for the display of five illuminated fascia signs, and a non-illuminated vinyl sign above the main entrance door. The application is retrospective, as all the proposed signs are already in situ.

The current proposal follows a previous application (2024/2771/A) which was withdrawn following concerns about the excessive number of signs proposed.

The officer’s report recommends approval.

The application received 52 objections, including objections from Councillor Tom Simon, the Belsize Society and the Belsize CAAC. There was also an objection from an interested party, but one local resident wrote in support of the scheme.

The objections mostly related to the visual impact of the signs, which residents feel are too large, bright, and prominent for the area, and out of keeping with the character of the Belsize Conservation Area. Residents are also concerned about the potential for the signs to cause light pollution, especially at night, and to cause traffic hazards at the junction.

A number of objections were received that are outside of the scope of advertisement consent. These mainly related to parking and traffic concerns, and concerns about the impact of the business on the viability of nearby businesses.