The Camden Council Planning Committee convened on 28 April 2025, to discuss planning applications, including proposed developments at 135-149 Shaftesbury Avenue, and 125 Shaftesbury Avenue. The committee, led by Councillor Heather Johnson, Chair of Planning Committee, was scheduled to review reports and recommendations from the Executive Director Supporting Communities regarding these applications.

Odeon Cinema/Saville Theatre, 135-149 Shaftesbury Avenue

Two applications concerning 135-149 Shaftesbury Avenue WC2H 8AH were up for discussion: a planning permission application (2024/0993/P) and a listed building consent application (2024/1005/L).

The proposal for the Grade II listed former Saville Theatre included:

• Partial demolition, restoration, and refurbishment.
• A roof extension.
• Excavation of basement space.
• Creation of a theatre at lower levels.
• Ancillary restaurant/bar space at ground floor level.
• A 220-room hotel at upper levels.
• Cycle parking, servicing, rooftop plant, and associated works.

The Executive Director Supporting Communities recommended granting conditional planning permission, subject to referral to the Mayor of London, finalisation of condition wording, and completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. They also recommended granting conditional listed building consent.

The report pack included an amendment to the proposed number of hotel long stay cycle parking spaces, changing the number from 14 to 13.

The report pack also included a summary of the key issues raised in letters of support and objection that had been received.

The report pack included a statement from Thames Water with suggested conditions and informatives.

The report pack also included a request from the applicant to remove the requirement for the theatre to be ‘retained in perpetuity’ from condition 33.

The report pack also included a proposal for an additional condition relating to asbestos.

The report pack also included an improved offer from the applicant to increase the number of subsidised tickets for Camden residents.

The report pack noted that the officer assessment and the final recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent remained unchanged.

125 Shaftesbury Avenue WC2H 8AD

The committee was scheduled to discuss planning application 2024/5408/P for 125 Shaftesbury Avenue WC2H 8AD. The proposal sought permission for:

• Remodelling, refurbishment, and extension of the existing building.
• Provision of Use Class E commercial and retail space.
• Amenity terraces.
• A new public route.
• Relocated entrances.
• Cycle parking.
• Servicing and rooftop plant.
• Associated highway, landscaping, and public realm improvements.

The Executive Director Supporting Communities recommended granting conditional planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

The report pack noted that the proposed development would result in a significant increase in employment floorspace, and that the applicant had agreed to make a payment in lieu of on-site housing of 50% of the full policy H2 compliant amount.

The report pack noted that Historic England had stated that the amendments to massing at the upper levels on Shaftesbury Avenue satisfactorily addressed previous concerns about harm to the Seven Dials Conservation Area and the former Saville Theatre.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust had welcomed that the delivery of a theatre had always been the primary cultural objective of the applicant.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that the proposed theatre was heavily constrained by its relocation into subterranean levels and would not be able to deliver the audience capacity promoted.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that the application had failed to overcome the main reasons for dismissal of the previous application.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that there was a high level of less than substantial harm with insufficient public benefit to justify that harm and no proper assessment of alternative options.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that the hotel dominated the building (approx. 55%) and therefore conflicted with previous Inquiry decision that much significance derived from a single use related to cultural function.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that the hotel was not an enabling use because there were other reasonable alternative means of delivering or designing the scheme with less or no harm.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that the vision of the draft site allocations had not been realised by the proposals due to the addition of other land uses.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that some elements of the proposal were sub-optimal and required compromise, but that overall, the applicant had demonstrated the space could work as a theatre.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust questioned the applicant’s suggested capacity of 600 seats.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that although constrained and compromised by its subterranean position, it had nonetheless been demonstrated that it could constitute a viable proposition, and that in isolation, the Trust could support provision if it had come forward as part of a new-build scheme or a new site without current cultural use.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust considered that should the council be minded to grant planning permission there was a need for robust planning conditions and/or legal agreements to protect delivery and ongoing future provision and sustainability of the theatre into the future.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA) had objected to the original submission on the grounds of land use, design, heritage, harm to local amenity, energy/sustainability, safety and basement impacts.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that there were two viable and attractive options that would not cause such harm and should be considered instead – reinstatement as a theatre using the original, existing back of house fabric, or continuation as a mainstream cinema.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that a full feasibility study for theatre use was undertaken in 2020 by Charcoal Blue, a leading theatre consultancy which concluded that the building can be reconfigured to accommodate all modern requirements with a 1,000 seat theatre using the same roof line.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that at the planning appeal a number of theatre operators and investors told them of their interest in returning the building to its original use.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the Odeon Covent Garden is one of their most successful sites in the UK and they would be happy to continue to operate there.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that Cirque du Soleil has some reputation in the industry for backing out of venues, so a firm lease contract should in any case be shown before this aspect of the scheme is given any serious consideration.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the loss of the primary cultural use causes harm to the character of the building, and that it would no longer primarily be a place of entertainment, but another mid-range modern hotel with a small expensive dinner theatre in the basement.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the proposals would destroy the carefully proportioned form of the existing building, and that the height and mass would wreak havoc with the high-quality architectural composition.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the previous appeal scheme was described by the inspector as “overly dominant” and that it would “detract from the existing form and composition”, and that an increase of 22m would be even more impactful.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the proposals would dominate the skyline and harm views from St Giles Church, causing harm to the Denmark Street Conservation Area.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the proposals would remove the building’s value as a local cinema, and that instead of an affordable outing for local people, there would be an expensive circus dinner offering, aimed at tourists in a relatively small sub-basement.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that there would be a loss of privacy and night time light pollution in homes, and that the development would add additional windows serving hotel bedrooms and 6 floors of new larger windows overlooking the flats.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that there would be a loss of sunlight to communal garden and children’s playground, and that all of Phoenix Garden’s social space would become shaded.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that there would be nuisance from servicing, and that hotel and restaurant servicing would be significantly more disruptive than the existing cinema.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that there had been subsidence in the past within 10m of the Odeon, with the pavement collapsing on New Compton Street, and that the deep basement could have a dangerous impact on surrounding buildings.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the applicant’s Circular Economy statement has little vision.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the submitted crime impact assessment does not mention the fact that New Compton Street is a well-known drug dealing and using hotspot, including the area immediately behind the site.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the proposed works should be classified as a refit rather than a retrofit, as they did not involve a full heating system upgrade.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that leaseholders were not consulted about replacing the boilers, despite their previous financial contributions.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the current system had lasted 50 years and was failing due to a lack of maintenance rather than age.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that residents expressed fears that ongoing works could last up to seven years, only for the boilers to fail, leading to further costly interventions.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that the applicant's claim that the new glazing would be thinner and lighter was challenged with deputees stating that existing glass was 4mm thick while the proposed vacuum-sealed glass was 8mm, which would doubling the weight.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that residents had got in contact with suppliers of the proposed laminated glazing and had been advised it was 16mm thick and it was believed that this would be incompatible with the historic window frames.

The report pack noted that the CGCA had stated that in pilot flats, windows had to be screwed shut as the existing ironmongery could not support the heavier glass.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Area Trust (CGAT) had objected to the proposals on the grounds that they would cause substantial harm to the special interest and significance of the listed building and a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the Seven Dials Conservation Area.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Association had objected to the original submission on the grounds that the proposals do not comply with policies D1 and D2 and will cause substantial harm to the listed building, and that the purported benefits do not compensate for the substantial harm caused by the proposals.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Association had stated that the proposed massing is far greater than the dismissed in the appeal for the previous proposal and will damage the character of the Seven Dials Conservation Area.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Association had stated that the current Odeon is well used by residents and its removal would represent the loss of an important local amenity, and that the loss of a well used local and culturally accessible cinema is not offset by the proposed small underground dinner show theatre.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had objected on the grounds that the multi-year construction, with its noise, air and traffic pollution, plus a permanent reduction in daylight and sunlight will leave the garden barely usable for local people.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had stated that the proposal’s construction and implementation will damage existing green infrastructure, seeing local communities denied access to community activities which promote physical activity, mental wellbeing benefits of experiencing nature and opportunities for social connection.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had stated that the overshadowing effect jeopardises the garden’s delicate biodiversity balance, denying direct sunlight and disrupting habitats of vital pollinators, insects and wildlife.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had stated that the submitted ecology report shows the reduction in light will have a “differential effect”, delaying “leaf and flower development, a shortening of the flowering season and, at the extreme end, a potential loss of some species”, on the “varied nature of habitat with the Phoenix Garden”, especially for “exotic species, such as tree echium”.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had stated that the significant increase in shade across the year risks a reduction in “the availability of nectar and pollen for invertebrates”.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had stated that traffic concerns had been discussed with the Director of Property Services at the hospital and the hospital had commissioned traffic consultants to undertake a report, which had recommended that cars could queue in the road leading the entrance to the car park, however, this solution was deemed to be impractical if the proposed construction works were to take place.

The report pack noted that the Seven Dials Trust had objected on the grounds that the extension is taller than the existing building, and that its height and bulk would dominate and overwhelm the listed building and destroy its original ‘restrained and carefully proportioned form’.

The report pack noted that the Seven Dials Trust had stated that the building was designed to integrate the sculptural work, and that the setting of the sculpture would be fundamentally changed, and its prominence would be diminished.

The report pack noted that the Seven Dials Trust had stated that additional harm would be caused by the removal and loss of surviving original fabric internally, and the demolition of the rear elevation.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Residents Action Group (BRAG) had objected on the grounds that to bring back the “name” of the historic theatre but gut the interior and plonk an ugly and out of scale hotel ‘box’ on top does not respect the integrity of the original building, nor its historic context.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Residents Action Group (BRAG) had stated that the gardens are a vital community asset, and that the open space will be plunged into shadow.

The report pack noted that the London Parks and Gardens had objected on the grounds that the daylight report reveals significant reductions in sunlight, especially between October and February, and that this is a critical period for plant growth and overall garden usability.

The report pack noted that the London Parks and Gardens had stated that the garden would experience a 33.8% reduction in sunlight during March, a crucial time for the emergence of many plant species and visitor engagement.

The report pack noted that the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society had objected on the grounds that the proposal seeks to remove all important remaining features aside from the façade representing a total loss of the remains of important heritage assets indicating the original purpose.

The report pack noted that the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society had stated that the proposed doubling of height would turn this into a tower block, completely losing the balance of the structure.

The report pack noted that the National Cinema Theatre Association) had objected on the grounds that the scheme would be a totally new structure within the original external walls, and that it would double the bulk of the historic structure.

The report pack noted that the National Cinema Theatre Association) had stated that the scheme would have a severely detrimental impact on Shaftesbury Avenue.

The report pack noted that the Soho Housing Association had objected on the grounds that the scale of the proposed development, the density of proposed uses and the destruction of character and proportions of the existing building, as well as the loss of an important and unspoilt amenity of the existing theatre building, would be a significant and sad loss to the immediate area, the West End and to London.

The report pack noted that the South Bloomsbury Tenants & Residents Association (SBTRA) had objected on the grounds that the proposals represent near total demolition of the existing building and a doubling of the volume, and that it will totally destroy its character and integrity.

The report pack noted that SAVE Britain’s Heritage had objected on the grounds that the six storey roof extension will have a serious impact on how the building is read both alone and within the street scene, and that it does not protect the setting of the building, nor the building itself when it doubles it in height.

The report pack noted that SAVE Britain’s Heritage had stated that the scheme would be a totally new structure within the original external walls, and that it would double the bulk of the historic structure.

The report pack noted that the City of Westminster did not wish to comment on the proposals.

The report pack noted that Thames Water had suggested conditions and informatives should planning permission be granted.

The report pack noted that Transport for London (TfL) Crossrail 2 Safeguarding had stated that the application relates to land outside the limits of land subject to consultation by the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction, and that they had no comments.

The report pack noted that the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) had commented, and recommended a condition if planning permission is granted.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust were supportive of a return of theatre use but considered a re-design to be necessary to provide a better balance of uses and reduce heritage harm.

The report pack noted that the Twentieth Century Society had objected, stating that the building is listed partly on account of its architectural interest, recognising “the quality of the architectural composition, its restrained and carefully proportioned form specially designed to integrate the purpose-designed sculptural work by Gilbert Bayes”.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA) had objected, stating that there are two viable and attractive options that would not cause such harm and should be considered instead – reinstatement as a theatre using the original, existing back of house fabric, or continuation as a mainstream cinema.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA) had stated that a full feasibility study for theatre use was undertaken in 2020 by Charcoal Blue, a leading theatre consultancy which concludes that the building can be reconfigured to accommodate all modern requirements with a 1,000 seat theatre using the same roof line.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Area Trust (CGAT) had objected, stating that the proposals will cause substantial harm to the special interest and significance of the listed building and a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the Seven Dials Conservation Area.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Association had objected, stating that the proposals do not comply with policies D1 and D2 and will cause substantial harm to the listed building, and that the purported benefits do not compensate for the substantial harm caused by the proposals.

The report pack noted that Phoenix Gardens had objected, stating that the multi-year construction, with its noise, air and traffic pollution, plus a permanent reduction in daylight and sunlight will leave the garden barely usable for local people.

The report pack noted that the Seven Dials Trust had objected, stating that the extension is taller than the existing building, and that its height and bulk would dominate and overwhelm the listed building and destroy its original ‘restrained and carefully proportioned form’.

The report pack noted that the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society had objected, stating that the proposal seeks to remove all important remaining features aside from the façade representing a total loss of the remains of important heritage assets indicating the original purpose.

The report pack noted that the National Cinema Theatre Association) had objected, stating that the scheme would be a totally new structure within the original external walls, and that it would double the bulk of the historic structure.

The report pack noted that the Soho Housing Association had objected, stating that the scale of the proposed development, the density of proposed uses and the destruction of character and proportions of the existing building, as well as the loss of an important and unspoilt amenity of the existing theatre building, would be a significant and sad loss to the immediate area, the West End and to London.

The report pack noted that the South Bloomsbury Tenants & Residents Association (SBTRA) had objected, stating that the proposals represent near total demolition of the existing building and a doubling of the volume, and that it will totally destroy its character and integrity.

The report pack noted that SAVE Britain’s Heritage had objected, stating that the six storey roof extension will have a serious impact on how the building is read both alone and within the street scene, and that it does not protect the setting of the building, nor the building itself when it doubles it in height.

The report pack included a table summarising the land use floorspaces, and parking details.

The report pack included a summary of the recommendation, the applicant, and the agent.

The report pack included a summary of the designations of the site.

The report pack included a description of the site.

The report pack included a summary of the relevant history of the site.

The report pack included a summary of the consultation responses.

The report pack included a summary of the national and regional policy and guidance.

The report pack included a summary of the local policy and guidance.

The report pack included a summary of the officer report.

The report pack included a summary of the reasons for referral to committee.

The report pack included a summary of the referral to the Mayor.

The report pack included a summary of the statutory duties in relation to deciding planning applications.

The report pack included a summary of the exercising specific duties in relation to listed buildings and land within conservation areas.

The report pack included a summary of the human rights act 1998.

The report pack included a summary of the equality act 2010 / children act 2004.

The report pack included a summary of other relevant matters.

The report pack included a summary of the town and country planning (use classes) order 1987 (as amended).

The report pack included a summary of enforcement.

The report pack included a summary of section 106 planning obligations.

The report pack included a summary of making a decision.

The report pack included a summary of involvement of the mayor of london in certain planning applications.

The report pack included a summary of how the council deals with its own applications.

The report pack included a summary of safeguarding direction for hs2.

The report pack included a summary of note on schedule 17 applications under the hs2 act.

The report pack included a summary of agenda item 6.

The report pack included a summary of agenda item 7.

The report pack included a summary of agenda item 7(1).

The report pack included a summary of agenda item 7(3).

The report pack included a summary of the executive summary.

The report pack included a summary of the officer report.

The report pack included a summary of the reason for referral to committee.

The report pack included a summary of the referral to the mayor.

The report pack included a summary of the site and background.

The report pack included a summary of the background.

The report pack included a summary of the proposal.

The report pack included a summary of the relevant history.

The report pack included a summary of the consultation.

The report pack included a summary of the statutory consultees.

The report pack included a summary of the greater london authority (gla).

The report pack included a summary of urban design.

The report pack included a summary of heritage.

The report pack included a summary of other issues.

The report pack included a summary of historic england.

The report pack included a summary of the greater london archaeological advisory service (glaas).

The report pack included a summary of the theatres trust.

The report pack included a summary of the land use / theatre design.

The report pack included a summary of the design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of the twentieth century society.

The report pack included a summary of the city of westminster.

The report pack included a summary of thames water.

The report pack included a summary of transport for london (tfl) crossrail 2 safeguarding.

The report pack included a summary of local groups.

The report pack included a summary of covent garden community association (cgca).

The report pack included a summary of land use / theatre provision.

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of harm to local amenity.

The report pack included a summary of energy / sustainability.

The report pack included a summary of safety.

The report pack included a summary of basement impacts.

The report pack included a summary of rebuttal of applicant’s claimed benefits.

The report pack included a summary of a second objection.

The report pack included a summary of covent garden area trust (cgat).

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of bloomsbury association.

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of land use.

The report pack included a summary of phoenix gardens.

The report pack included a summary of impact on phoenix gardens.

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of energy / sustainability and air quality.

The report pack included a summary of other.

The report pack included a summary of seven dials trust.

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of amenity.

The report pack included a summary of a second objection.

The report pack included a summary of viability.

The report pack included a summary of operational concerns.

The report pack included a summary of bloomsbury residents action group (brag).

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of impact on phoenix garden.

The report pack included a summary of amenity.

The report pack included a summary of london parks and gardens.

The report pack included a summary of impact on phoenix gardens.

The report pack included a summary of london and middlesex archaeological society.

The report pack included a summary of heritage.

The report pack included a summary of impact on phoenix gardens.

The report pack included a summary of national cinema theatre association).

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of land use / theatre provision.

The report pack included a summary of soho housing association.

The report pack included a summary of south bloomsbury tenants & residents association (sbtra).

The report pack included a summary of design / heritage.

The report pack included a summary of impact on phoenix gardens.

The report pack included a summary of land use / theatre provision.

The report pack noted that save britain’s heritage had objected covering the following issue(s):

Design / Heritage

The proposal seeks to remove all important remaining features aside from the façade representing a total loss of the remains of important heritage assets indicating the original purpose.

The proposed doubling of height would turn this into a tower block, completely losing the balance of the structure.

The proposed benefits do not justify the losses.

The Planning Inspector for the previous application found harm to the adjoining conservation areas from the proposed extension. This scheme is much larger and will have a correspondingly more detrimental impact.

The Council should satisfy itself that any disrepair is not a result of deliberate neglect.

The report pack noted that a second objection was received in response to the revised proposals reiterating the same concerns. The revisions were not considered to alter the fundamental concerns, nor comply with the draft Camden Local Plan Site Allocations requirement for any roof extension to enhance the building and be of an appropriate height.

The report pack noted that six sites notice were displayed surrounding the site on Shaftesbury Avenue, New Compton Street, St Giles Passage and Stacey Street.

The report pack noted that 221 objections, 34 comments and 83 letters of support were received.

The report pack noted that following the receipt of revisions to the proposals, the application was re-consulted, and that a further 64 objections were received and largely reiterated the same concerns raised in response to the original proposals, with many commenting that the proposals were unchanged in any meaningful way.

The report pack noted that the objections received by the Council are all published in full on the Council’s website.

The report pack noted that the key issues raised are listed below.

The report pack noted that the land use, design / heritage, harm to local amenity, energy / sustainability and air quality, safety, basement impacts, and rebuttal of applicant’s claimed benefits were discussed.

The report pack noted that 89 letters of support were received, including from the Soho Business Alliance.

The report pack noted that the Greater London Authority (GLA) had provided their Stage 1 Response, advising that the application does not comply with the London Plan.

The report pack noted that the GLA had stated that London Plan policies support the principle of a theatre use at this West End site, within a historic theatre building, and that the proposed hotel use would also support the strategic functions of the Central Activities Zone.

The report pack noted that the GLA had stated that the scale and form of the proposed upwards extension raises serious concerns, and that it fails to respect or relate well to the scale and character of the existing building and would dominate the local townscape and street scene to an inappropriate extent.

The report pack noted that the GLA had stated that they have identified a high degree of less than substantial direct harm to the listed building, as well as less than substantial harm (in the low to middle end of the range) to the setting of adjacent conservation areas and listed buildings.

The report pack noted that the GLA had stated that improvements to the energy strategy are required, including the carbon savings achieved on site, and that further work is also required to the Circular Economy Statement and Whole Life Cycle Carbon Assessment.

The report pack noted that the GLA had stated that other issues relating to Transport also require resolution prior to the Mayor’s decision making stage.

The report pack noted that Historic England had objected to the original submission covering the following issues:

Heritage

This scheme would seriously damage the architectural and historic integrity of the listed building, through the scale of the upward hotel extension, its dominance of the host building, the loss of all remaining internal features and the rebuilding of the rear elevation.

The extension would radically and harmfully change the clear and considered geometry of the building, and that it would be overbearing and seriously diminish the clarity and strength of the existing building.

The heritage benefits presented as part of the scheme are not clearly linked to this proposal, and the lack of a true restoration of an auditorium within the historic building volume limits the heritage value of a return to theatre use.

The scheme would cause a high level of harm to the listed building which would be of a rare and serious nature, and that the harm would be at the very top of the range of less-than-substantial in the terminology of the NPPF.

The harm to the listed building would cause some associated harm to the adjacent Seven Dials and Denmark Street Conservation Areas.

The report pack noted that Historic England had objected to the revised proposals reiterating many of the original concerns.

The report pack noted that the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) had commented, and condition recommended if planning permission is granted.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust were supportive of a return of theatre use but considered a re-design to be necessary to provide a better balance of uses and reduce heritage harm.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust had stated that the scheme proposes a much greater extension than the previous appeal scheme, and that the balance of uses is just over 40% for theatre and 60% for hotel, and that there is an imbalance of uses and the hotel dominates.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust had suggested that a scheme reduced in height and possibly without basement extension, potentially involving an alternative hotel operator who could viably work with fewer bedrooms, could continue to offer the same public and heritage benefits as this scheme whilst addressing our concerns as well as those issues which saw the previous scheme fail.

The report pack noted that the Theatres Trust had stated that alternatively, more of the existing volume could be utilised for the theatre, with more modest extension given over to hotel use or other enabling uses if required, and that there appears to be no appraisal of alternative options.

The report pack noted that the Twentieth Century Society had objected covering the following issues:

The building is listed partly on account of its architectural interest, recognising “the quality of the architectural composition, its restrained and carefully proportioned form specially designed to integrate the purpose-designed sculptural work by Gilbert Bayes”. The addition of 6 storeys to the roof would drastically change its proportions and appearance with seriously detrimental impact.

The extension would in no way respond to the restrained materiality and character, and that it would be visually disruptive and take away form the quality of the listed building and its integrated artwork.

It is effectively a façade retention scheme as everything but the key elevations would be removed, and that although the interiors have gone through major changes, any surviving fabric would be completely and irreversibly lost.

No objection to the principle of converting the former theatre to a hotel and theatre but the proposed approach is entirely unacceptable.

The society considers the proposals to amount to substantial harm to the building’s significance, and that the harm would not be mitigated by the handful of heritage benefits.

The report pack noted that the City of Westminster did not wish to comment on the proposals.

The report pack noted that Thames Water had suggested conditions and informatives should planning permission be granted.

The report pack noted that Transport for London (TfL) Crossrail 2 Safeguarding had stated that the application relates to land outside the limits of land subject to consultation by the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Direction, and that they had no comments.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Community Association (CGCA) had objected covering the following issues:

Land use / theatre provision

There are two viable and attractive options that would not cause such harm and should be considered instead – reinstatement as a theatre using the original, existing back of house fabric, or continuation as a mainstream cinema.

A full feasibility study for theatre use was undertaken in 2020 by Charcoal Blue, a leading theatre consultancy which concludes that the building can be reconfigured to accommodate all modern requirements with a 1,000 seat theatre using the same roof line.

The Odeon Covent Garden is one of their most successful sites in the UK and they would be happy to continue to operate here.

Cirque du Soleil has some reputation in the industry for backing out of venues, so a firm lease contract should in any case be shown before this aspect of the scheme is given any serious consideration.

Design / Heritage

The loss of the primary cultural use causes harm to the character of the building, and that it would no longer primarily be a place of entertainment, but another mid-range modern hotel with a small expensive dinner theatre in the basement.

The proposals would destroy the carefully proportioned form of the existing building, and that the height and mass would wreak havoc with the high-quality architectural composition.

The previous appeal scheme was described by the inspector as “overly dominant” and that it would “detract from the existing form and composition”, and that an increase of 22m would be even more impactful.

Impact on conservation areas – The site is clearly seen from the famous Sundial pillar from Seven Dials, and that views from this key point would be severely compromised by the tall building.

Harm to local amenity

The proposals would remove the building’s value as a local cinema, and that instead of an affordable outing for local people, there would be an expensive circus dinner offering, aimed at tourists in a relatively small sub-basement.

Loss of privacy and night time light pollution in homes, and that the development would add additional windows serving hotel bedrooms and 6 floors of new larger windows overlooking the flats.

Loss of daylight to homes – the daylight report downplays some serious results.

Loss of sunlight to communal garden and children’s playground – these provide important amenity spaces for local families, none of whom have private gardens.

All of Phoenix Garden’s social space would become shaded, and that this level of shade would allow very few varieties of plants to grow, contrary to policy A3 of the Local Plan and policy G6 of the London Plan.

Nuisance from servicing – hotel and restaurant servicing would be significantly more disruptive than the existing cinema.

Energy / Sustainability

The extensive demolition is contrary to local and national sustainability policies, especially when there are alternative ways to use the site.

The applicant’s Circular Economy statement has little vision.

Safety

Fire access risk – access to such a high building, constrained by narrow streets on 3 sides will be inadequate.

Danger to pedestrians and reduced community safety due to drug crime, and that the submitted crime impact assessment does not mention the fact that New Compton Street is a well-known drug dealing and using hotspot, including the area immediately behind the site.

Basement impacts

There has been subsidence in the past within 10m of the Odeon, with the pavement collapsing on New Compton Street, and that the deep basement could have a dangerous impact on surrounding buildings.

There may be ancient surface water features and water courses close to the site.

The report pack noted that the Covent Garden Area Trust (CGAT) had objected covering the following issue(s):

Design / Heritage

The proposals will cause substantial harm to the special interest and significance of the listed building and a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the Seven Dials Conservation Area.

The roof extension is taller than the listed building itself, and that it would completely overwhelm the ‘restrained and carefully proportioned form’ of the listed building.

The loss of all remaining internal structure and features would cause serious damage to the architectural and historic integrity.

The substantial harm is not justified and there is an absence of benefits which would outweigh the harm.

The report pack noted that the Bloomsbury Association had objected covering the following issue(s):

Design / Heritage

The proposals do not comply with policies D1 and D2 and will cause substantial harm to the listed building, and that the purported benefits do not compensate for the substantial harm caused by