The Planning Sub-Committee (2) of Westminster Council met on Tuesday 21 April 2026 to discuss several planning applications. The committee granted conditional planning permission for a new research and public engagement hub at The Bays & Patterson Cabin, approved details for servicing and travel plans at 129-137 Marylebone Road, and granted conditional planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of 40 Cambridge Street into the Embassy of Montenegro. They also approved the continued use of Passage House as a hostel and refused permission for a mansard roof extension at 9 Churton Place.

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

The committee granted conditional planning permission for the redevelopment of The Bays building to create The Fleming Centre, a hub for anti-microbial resistance (AMR) research, policy development, and public engagement. The project involves demolishing the existing roof, internal floors, and walls of The Bays building, retaining its external walls, and constructing a new four-storey vertical extension and a two-storey ancillary pavilion structure. The Fleming Centre will house exhibition and education spaces, healthcare research laboratories, consulting rooms, offices, and workspace.

The decision was made subject to referral to the Mayor of London and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. This agreement will secure several obligations, including:

• A walkway agreement for new public realm areas.
• Public access to exhibition spaces and the café terrace at no cost.
• Public access to toilets within the exhibition centre at no cost.
• A financial contribution of £81,289.44 towards local employment, training, and skills development initiatives.
• An Employment and Skills Plan.
• A Social, community and educational strategy.
• A financial contribution of £144,540 towards the Carbon Off Set Fund.
• 'Be Seen' monitoring and reporting on the building's operational energy performance.
• Public Art to the value of £250,000.
• Securing the cost of monitoring biodiversity on site net gains.
• A financial contribution of £80,910 to fund green infrastructure elsewhere in Westminster.
• The cost of monitoring the Section 106 agreement.

If the Section 106 agreement is not completed by 31st May 2026, the Director of Town Planning & Building Control will consider issuing permission with additional conditions or refusing permission.

The development was praised for its exceptional design quality and significant public benefits, including economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social benefits through the creation of a world-leading research facility and public exhibition space. Concerns regarding heritage harm to the Bayswater Conservation Area were noted but considered outweighed by the public benefits.

129 - 137 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QD

The committee approved details for two applications related to the planning permission granted in November 2022 for the redevelopment of the site.

Application 1 (24/08987/FULL) sought a variation of Condition 35 of the original planning permission. The amendment allows the service route to be used as pedestrian access to the mews building from both Knox Street and Wyndham Street, with compliance with an Operational Management Plan. This change was made to provide flexibility for the mews building to accommodate a separate tenant. Ward Councillors and local residents objected, raising concerns about increased pedestrian traffic, potential for drivers to park on residential streets, and noise from gates. However, the Highways Planning Team and Transport for London raised no objection. The committee considered the movement of a small number of people unlikely to cause significant disturbance and that the Operational Management Plan addressed concerns regarding smoking areas and deliveries.

Application 2 (24/08544/ADFULL) sought approval of details for Conditions 10 and 21b & c of the original permission, relating to the submission of a final detailed Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan, and a Travel Plan. These plans aim to confirm the time, location, and routing of deliveries and encourage sustainable travel. Neighbours raised objections regarding inaccurate modelling, the need for physical controls like automatic gates, and concerns about delivery capacity. The Council's Highways Team and Transport for London reviewed the submitted details and found them satisfactory, concluding that the measures outlined would help reduce the development's impact on the highway.

Both applications were recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a deed of variation for the Section 106 legal agreement.

40 Cambridge Street, London, SW1V 4QH

The committee granted conditional planning permission and listed building consent for the change of use of 40 Cambridge Street from a single-family dwellinghouse to the Embassy of Montenegro (Sui Generis). The proposal also includes the installation of a flagpole on the first-floor balcony and a plaque alongside the main entrance door.

The decision was made despite objections from local ward councillors, residents, and amenity societies who argued that the location was unsuitable for an embassy due to its quiet, residential character, and that the loss of a family home was unjustified. Concerns were also raised about potential security risks, protests, and the impact of the flagpole and plaque on the Pimlico Conservation Area and the Grade II listed building.

However, the committee noted that embassies are considered strategic functions within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and that diplomatic missions play a vital role in international relations. The proposed embassy would be small-scale with minimal visitor numbers, operating by appointment only. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and the Metropolitan Police raised no objections. The committee concluded that the significant public benefits of supporting diplomatic relations and consular services for the Montenegrin diaspora outweighed the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets. Conditions were imposed to ensure the flagpole and plaque are removed if the Embassy vacates the building and to limit visitor hours and numbers.

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

The committee granted conditional planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of the existing buildings at Trafalgar Buildings into a hotel with retail units at ground level. The proposal involves partial demolition of rear facades and existing additions, the erection of a new rear infill extension, alterations to the roof and front facades, and internal reconfiguration.

The decision was subject to a Section 106 legal agreement to secure:

• A financial contribution of £237,270 towards the Carbon Off Set Fund.
• 'Be Seen' monitoring and reporting on the building's operational energy performance.
• A financial contribution of £66,177 towards local employment, training, and skills development initiatives.
• Confirmation that the 2020 planning permission and listed building consent for demolition behind retained facades will no longer be relied upon upon commencement of development.
• The cost of monitoring the agreement.

The committee considered the loss of office floorspace to be justified due to insufficient demand for conventional office leases, and the provision of a hotel to be appropriate for the location, aligning with the London Plan's aim to increase accommodation for tourists. The design of the rear extension was considered acceptable, although it was acknowledged to cause a low level of less than substantial harm to heritage assets. This harm was deemed to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals, including economic growth, environmental improvements through deep retrofitting, and increased hotel capacity. Conditions were imposed to ensure the achievement of BREEAM 'Excellent' rating, appropriate energy performance, and archaeological mitigation.

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

The committee granted conditional planning permission for the continued use of Passage House as a hostel (sui generis) for homeless individuals. Passage House has been operating as a hostel since the late 1990s, providing supported accommodation and resettlement services.

The decision was made despite objections from neighbouring residents who raised concerns about noise, anti-social behaviour, litter, and safety issues. They argued that the building was unsuitable for hostel use and that existing management procedures were inadequate. 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).

The committee considered the applicant's Operational Management Procedures, which include 24-hour staffing, locality checks, a warning system for residents, and a formal complaints procedure. The Metropolitan Police also supported the application, stating that Passage House has well-established protocols for managing anti-social behaviour. While acknowledging that the hostel's use might cause some harm to neighbouring amenity due to its close proximity, the committee concluded that with the proposed management procedures, the continued use could not reasonably be resisted, aligning with City Plan Policies 14, 7, and 37. Conditions were imposed to limit the number of residents, secure adherence to the Operational Management Plan, and ensure specific window treatments for privacy.

9 Churton Place, London, SW1V 2LN

The committee refused planning permission for the erection of a mansard roof extension to replace the existing butterfly roof at 9 Churton Place. The proposal included dormer windows to the rear and front elevations and a roof light.

The refusal was primarily based on design grounds. The committee considered that the proposed mansard extension would disrupt the uniformity of the terrace on Churton Place, harm the appearance of the building, and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area. While acknowledging that the extension would provide additional usable space for the growing family occupying the property, the committee found that the public benefits were limited and primarily private, not outweighing the less than substantial harm to heritage assets. The proposal 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). The committee noted that the property already had approved permissions for a pitched roof extension and rear extensions, which could provide additional space.