Agenda item

Demolition of existing works building and redevelopment of the existing surface level car park, along with the conversion of existing Grade II listed underground vaults, to provide a mixed use development comprising of a 4 to 7 storey building providing 35 residential units (15 affordable and 20 market rate) (Class C3), a 61 bedroom hotel (Class C1), office floorspace (Class B1a), restaurant (Class A3), retail (Class A1) and gym (Class D2), along with the creation of new public realm, associated landscaping and alterations to the existing access arrangements.

(Planning application number: P2016/0488/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) figures in the officer report had changed and were now £534,309 for the Mayoral CIL and £2,347,768 for the Islington CIL.

·         The planning officer stated that the applicant had signed the statutory declaration confirming that the scheme would be deliverable with the level of obligations set out in the report as well as the CIL of £534,309 for the Mayoral CIL and £2,347,768 for the Islington CIL.

·         The planning officer stated that reference to a need to meet in full the carbon offset contribution should be added into the second bullet point of Recommendation A in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

·         Concern was raised by a member that the £600,000 to be spent by the developer on marketing the scheme was excessive. The BPS representative and the applicant stated that this was in line with the market norms.

·         Concern was raised that the viability was based on generic sums. A member suggested that marketing would not be necessary in the area in which the proposed development was located and the hotel would not need to marketed as an operator had been found.

·         Members raised concern over the principle of introducing a hotel at the site.

·         The planning officer advised that the adopted site allocation policy was specifically worded so as to allow a hotel at the site and development plan policy identified the site as suitable in principle for a hotel. The planning officer advised that in the previous appeal decision, the inspector had not raised concern over the principle of the inclusion of a hotel. The presence of a hotel and the jobs it would create were cited as one of the benefits of the proposal.

·         Concern was raised that there might be an overconcentration of hotels in the area. The applicant stated that their hotel consultant had conducted an analysis to establish the demand level, see whether a hotel would be viable or whether there would be overconcentration.

·         In response to a question from the chair, the legal officer advised that the inspector’s decision was a material consideration as was anything material which had happened since the inspector’s decision. Therefore any newly consented hotels since the appeal decision could be taken into account.

·         Concern was raised that if the committee approved the development without context it could be approving a development which was not policy compliant. The legal officer advised that if the committee felt it had insufficient information, it could defer the consideration of the application for more information.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to defer the consideration of the application to receive the full report on the analysis that had been undertaken to establish the hotel demand level in the area and to establish if there would be an overconcentration of hotels or similar uses as set out in Policy DM4.11. This was seconded by Councillor O’Halloran and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above the wording of which was delegated to officers.