The Planning Committee of Camden Council met on Thursday 30 July 2026 to consider several planning applications. The meeting agenda included discussions on a change of use at 200 Gray's Inn Road, the redevelopment of Kingsway House and adjacent properties into an aparthotel, and proposals for extensions and alterations to the Four Points Flex Hotel. Other applications discussed involved changes at Tavis House, 94 South Hill Park, and a deputation regarding the Four Points Flex Hotel.

200 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8XZ

The committee was scheduled to consider a proposal for a change of use at 200 Gray's Inn Road. The application sought to allow for a flexible use of 13,058 square metres across levels 1 to 7 of the existing building, permitting it to be used as either Class E (commercial, business, and service) or Class F1(a) (learning and non-residential institutions) space. The report pack indicated that approximately 50% of the building was vacant, with marketing efforts demonstrating a lack of demand for office space in this location. To mitigate the loss of employment space, a financial contribution towards activities promoting employment or training for local people was to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. No external alterations were proposed, meaning the building's appearance would remain unchanged.

Kingsway House, 103 Kingsway, London WC2B 6QX & 4 Great Queen Street & 62 Parker Street, London WC2B 5DJ

A significant proposal for the demolition of 4 Great Queen Street and 62 Parker Street, and the erection of a new seven-storey building, was scheduled for discussion. This was in connection with a change of use for Kingsway House from commercial use (Class E) to an aparthotel (Class C1). The plans also included extensions and remodelling of the upper storeys of Kingsway House to accommodate further aparthotel floorspace, a ground-floor commercial unit (Class E), and associated refurbishment works to Kingsway House's façade. The report noted that the existing buildings at 4 Great Queen Street and 62 Parker Street were in poor structural condition. The proposal aimed to bring vacant and underutilised buildings back into active use, supporting London's visitor economy. A financial contribution towards affordable housing delivery was to be secured via a Section 106 agreement, as on-site housing provision was deemed unfeasible due to design and operational constraints. The development was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and Section 106 obligations, despite causing a low level of less than substantial harm to the Kingsway Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent listed buildings.

Four Points Flex Hotel, 8-11 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0JW

The committee was set to consider a planning application for the Four Points Flex Hotel. The proposal included the erection of a part two-, part seven-storey side extension, a mansard roof extension, and a basement extension, along with ancillary works. A key aspect of the proposal was the relocation of existing kitchen extract plant from a flat roof to the main roof, with associated ductwork. The application sought to increase the hotel's floorspace by 955 square metres, adding 39 guest rooms. Concerns were raised by local residents and traders regarding noise and air pollution from existing and proposed plant equipment, construction impacts, safety, and the effect on local businesses. A deputation from Ben Bryant on behalf of residents and traders of Woburn Walk and Duke's Road was scheduled to present objections. The report indicated that the proposal would be car-free and included contributions towards sustainable transport initiatives. A Section 106 legal agreement was to secure various obligations, including a payment in lieu of on-site housing provision, energy and sustainability measures, transport contributions, and employment and training initiatives.

Tavis House, 1-6 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9NA

The committee was scheduled to discuss alterations at levels 8 and 9 of Tavis House to create usable roof terraces. These alterations included the removal of existing rooftop enclosures, amendments to the stair and lift cores, the construction of a new rooftop pavilion, and a new plant enclosure. The proposal aimed to improve the existing office space. Objections were raised by Mary Ward House (MWH) Conference Centre and Bloomsbury CAAC, citing concerns about potential harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Grade I listed Mary Ward House. These concerns related to visual impacts, construction noise and vibration, operational disruption, and cumulative impacts from concurrent applications. The officer's report concluded that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area and would not negatively impact the setting of nearby heritage assets.

94 South Hill Park, London NW3 2SN

The committee was to consider a proposal for extensive alterations and extensions to 94 South Hill Park. The plans included the excavation of a basement extension with a front lightwell, a rear extension and terrace at lower ground floor, a side extension at upper ground floor, an enlarged rear terrace at second floor, replacement and enlargement of dormers and a rooflight, new windows to the side elevation, an enclosed bin store at the front, and a new boundary fence. The proposal aimed to provide good quality family accommodation while preserving the character of the South Hill Park Conservation Area and protecting neighbouring amenity. The Basement Impact Assessment was reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Council's engineers. Construction impacts were to be mitigated through a Construction Management Plan secured via a Section 106 legal agreement.

Deputation Request: Four Points Flex Hotel

A deputation request from Ben Bryant, representing residents and traders of Woburn Walk and Duke's Road, was scheduled to be heard regarding the Four Points Flex Hotel application (2025/4768/P). The deputation aimed to object to the application or propose non-negotiable conditions. Key concerns raised included ongoing noise and air pollution from existing and proposed plant equipment (KEP and ASHP), noise and air pollution from construction, safety and business impacts due to hoarding, noise pollution from rear courtyards, privacy concerns regarding potential overlooking from new windows, a lack of clarity on Section 106 contributions for local maintenance, and issues with project management and side entrance usage. The deputation sought specific confirmations and conditions to be attached to any approval.