The Planning Sub-Committee (2) of Westminster Council met on Tuesday 21 April 2026 to discuss several planning applications. The committee granted conditional permission for a new research and public engagement hub at The Bays & Patterson Cabin, South Wharf Road, Paddington, and for the continued use of Passage House, Longmoore Street, as a hostel. Permission was also granted for the conversion of Trafalgar Buildings, Whitehall, into a hotel, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement. However, planning permission was refused for a mansard roof extension at 9 Churton Place, London, due to concerns about its impact on the conservation area's character.

The Bays & Patterson Cabin, South Wharf Road, Paddington, W2 1NY

Conditional planning permission was granted for works to The Bays building, including demolition of the existing roof, internal floors, and walls, with retention and alteration of the external walls and facade. A new four-storey vertical extension and a rooftop terrace will be constructed to create a mixed-use building known as The Fleming Centre. This centre will house exhibition, education, and multifunctional spaces, healthcare research laboratories, consulting rooms, offices, and workspace. A two-storey ancillary pavilion structure will also be built, along with new public realm and landscaping.

The development is intended to be a hub for anti-microbial resistance (AMR) research, policy development, and public engagement. The proposal was supported by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Historic England, although Historic England noted that the extensive alteration and upward extension would cause harm to the Bayswater Conservation Area. Concerns were raised by The Royal Parks regarding massing in the Paddington Basin area, and Transport for London (TfL) highlighted requirements for further improvements in transport, sustainable infrastructure, and environment.

The decision to grant permission was subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure various obligations, including public access to exhibition spaces and café terraces, financial contributions towards local employment and skills development, a carbon offset fund, public art, biodiversity monitoring, and green infrastructure.

129 - 137 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QD

Two applications were considered relating to the planning permission granted in November 2022 for the redevelopment and extensions of the buildings on site for continued office use.

The first application sought a minor material amendment to Condition 35 of the original planning permission. This amendment aimed to allow pedestrian access to the mews building at the rear of the site via the service yard entrance, which opens onto Knox Street and Wyndham Street. Previously, pedestrian access was restricted to Marylebone Road, with the service yard entrance only permitted for deliveries. The amendment also changed the condition to require compliance with an operational management plan. This change was sought to provide flexibility for the mews building to accommodate a separate tenant.

The second application sought approval of details for Conditions 10 and 21b & c of the original permission. These conditions required the submission of a detailed Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan, and a Travel Plan to encourage sustainable travel.

Both applications were recommended for approval. The Highways Planning Team and TfL raised no objections to the proposed amendments and details. However, objections were received from Ward Councillors for Marylebone and local residents, primarily concerning the potential impact on residential amenity, highway safety, and the management of access and deliveries. Despite these objections, officers concluded that the revised scheme and details complied with relevant City Plan policies and Council standards, subject to a deed of variation of the Section 106 legal agreement for the first application.

40 Cambridge Street, London, SW1V 4QH

Conditional planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the change of use of the property from a single-family dwellinghouse (Class C3) to the Embassy of Montenegro (Sui Generis). Associated listed building consent was granted for the installation of a flagpole on the first-floor balcony and a name plaque alongside the main entrance door.

The proposal was met with objections from local ward councillors, residents, and amenity societies, who argued that Cambridge Street is a quiet residential street unsuitable for an embassy, that the use would harm the residential character and amenity of the street, and that it would result in the loss of a family home. Concerns were also raised about security risks, potential protests, and parking implications.

However, the committee noted that embassies are recognised as strategic functions within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) under the London Plan and City Plan. The proposed embassy would be small-scale with minimal visitor numbers, and an Operational Management Plan (OMP) was submitted to control visitor hours and numbers. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office recognised the property for diplomatic purposes, and the Metropolitan Police raised no objections.

While the proposal would result in the loss of a family home, contrary to City Plan Policy 12, the committee found that the significant public benefits of supporting diplomatic relations and providing consular services to the Montenegrin diaspora outweighed this harm. A condition was recommended to ensure the property reverts to a family home if the Embassy vacates. The flagpole and plaque were considered to cause less than substantial harm to the heritage assets, which was also outweighed by the public benefits.

Trafalgar Buildings, 1 - 3 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2DD

Conditional planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the conversion of part basement, part ground, and upper floors of the existing buildings, along with the erection of a rear infill extension and external alterations. The proposal includes the reprovision of retail units at ground level and the change of use of the upper floors to a hotel.

The applications sought to overcome previous refusals in 2025, which cited insufficient justification for the loss of office space, inadequate energy performance, and harmful design of the rear extension. The current proposals included additional marketing evidence for the office space, improved energy performance, and an altered design for the rear extension.

The committee noted that the site is in a prominent location within the Trafalgar Square Conservation Area and is adjacent to Grade II listed buildings. While the proposed rear extension and alterations would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to heritage assets, this harm was considered to be outweighed by significant public benefits. These benefits include an increase in hotel rooms supporting tourism, improved energy performance, the deep retrofitting of the buildings (contrasting with a more carbon-intensive extant permission for demolition and rebuilding), and improvements to drainage.

A Section 106 legal agreement was required to secure financial contributions towards a Carbon Offset Fund and local employment initiatives, as well as 'Be Seen' monitoring of energy performance and the agreement's monitoring costs. The agreement also stipulated that the extant demolition and rebuilding permission could no longer be relied upon if these proposals were implemented.

Passage House, 1 - 5 Longmoore Street, London, SW1V 1JH

Conditional planning permission was granted for the continued use of Passage House as a hostel (sui generis). The property has been operating as a hostel for the homeless since the late 1990s under a temporary planning permission granted for 30 years, which is due to expire in March 2027. The current application sought to establish this use permanently.

The proposal was met with strong objections from neighbouring residents, primarily due to concerns about noise disturbance, anti-social behaviour, street disorder, congregating, loitering, litter, and security and safety issues. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of the complaints procedure and the suitability of the building for hostel use.

However, the committee noted that the continued use of the site as a hostel is critical to the Council's commitment to tackling homelessness, as outlined in the Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategy (2025-2030). Passage House operates as a rapid-response assessment and resettlement centre, providing supported accommodation and services. The Metropolitan Police supported the application, highlighting the well-established protocols in place to prevent and address anti-social behaviour.

While acknowledging that the hostel's use might cause some harm to neighbouring residential amenity due to its close proximity and the constrained nature of the site, the committee considered that with the proposed operational management procedures, including 24-hour staffing, locality checks, resident agreements, and a robust complaints process, the continued use could not reasonably be resisted. The refurbishment of the building in 2022 to provide ensuite facilities in each room was also noted as an improvement.

9 Churton Place, London, SW1V 2LN

Planning permission was refused for the erection of a mansard roof extension to replace the existing butterfly roof, including the addition of dormer windows to the rear and front elevations and the installation of a roof light.

The primary reason for refusal was that the proposed mansard extension would disrupt the uniformity of the terrace in Churton Place, harm the appearance of the building, and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area. The committee considered that the mansard roof, due to its height, form, and design, would be unduly prominent and undermine the uniformity of the terrace. This was deemed contrary to City Plan Policy 45E and Pimlico Neighbourhood Plan Policy PIM3, as well as advice in the 'Pimlico Conservation Area Audit' (2006).

While the proposal would create additional living space for a growing family, the committee found that the existing property already provided sufficient accommodation and had recently received permissions for other extensions. Therefore, the public benefits of the proposed mansard were considered limited and primarily private, not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.