Basement works and loss of office space see council鈥檚 rejection upheld

Plans to convert a Mayfair office building into a 70-room hotel and private members鈥� club have been refused at appeal.

EPR鈥檚 proposals would have involved the excavation of a three-level basement and the addition of a new roof terrace to seven-storey Leconfield House in Curzon Street, originally built in the 1930s.

Leconfield House 2

Source: EPR Architects

EPR鈥檚 original proposals involved installing green walls at Leconfield House, but it dropped that element from the scheme following neighbour concerns and an expectation that the government would tighten building regulations following the Hackitt Review

EPR鈥檚 proposals also included restaurants, a spa and wellness centre, and shops.

But Westminster City Council refused the application in August last year, saying developer Leconfield House Ltd had provided insufficient evidence that there was no market interest in the building鈥檚 ongoing use as offices.

Officers also said the proposed extent of basement works would have a 鈥渟erious impact鈥� on neighbours鈥� quality of life, contrary to a specific city council policy.

In a decision following a five-day hearing in June, planning inspector Andrea Mageean sided with the authority.

She acknowledged that while the Ritz Hotel had proposals for a five-storey basement approved under the same policy 鈥� , there were 鈥渃ircumstantial differences鈥� between that site and the appeal site.

鈥淚t would in practical terms be possible to construct the proposed basement, with many of the most harmful impacts mitigated to some degree through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions,鈥� she said of the Leconfield House scheme.

鈥淗owever, the question is whether this development would meet the requirements of Policy 45 which seeks to manage the negative environmental and amenity impacts of basement developments of more than one storey.鈥� Mageean concluded it would not.

She said the inquiry had heard 鈥渕uch debate鈥� about the adequacy of the marketing information for Leconfield House, intended to show there was no demand for the building鈥檚 continued use as office accommodation.

But Mageean said: 鈥淪uch considerations are of no real consequence as the marketing information does not meet the minimum 12-month requirement.鈥�

She added that marketing space in the building at 拢100 per-square-foot, based on a light-touch refurbishment, 鈥渕ay not be realistic鈥�.

鈥淎t this point in time it is not clear that that the Leconfield House office space has come to the end of its economic life,鈥� she said.

In her report, Mageean acknowledged that the proposal represented a 鈥渘otable investment in social and cultural infrastructure, with resulting support to the visitor economy鈥�.

But she said those benefits would not outweigh the identified harm and its associated development-plan conflict.

Topics