Examination of Special Policy Areas and Policies Map Revision ‐ Written Representations

1 Ascott Limited

2 Sport England

3 Westminster City Council

Responses received to confirm no further comments from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 

Natural England and Transport for London.

From: Mark FurnishTo: Fletcher, Jonathan: WCCSubject: Examination of Special Policy Areas and Policies Map RevisionDate: 29 July 2016 18:05:05

Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for consulting Sport England on Westminster City Plan’s Special Policy Areas andPolicies Map Revision. Planning Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework identifies how the planning systemcan play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusivecommunities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking,cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process andproviding enough sports facilities of the right quality and type and in the right places is vital toachieving this aim. This means positive planning for sport, protection from unnecessary loss ofsports facilities and an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land andcommunity facilities provision is important. It is important therefore that the revisions to Westminster’s City Plan reflects national policy forsport as set out in the above document with particular reference to Pars 73 and 74 to ensureproposals comply with National Planning Policy. It is also important to be aware of SportEngland’s role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing fields(see link below), as set out in our national guide, ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields ofEngland – Planning Policy Statement’: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/ Sport England provides guidance on developing policy for sport and further information can befound following the link below: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/forward-planning/ In line with paragraph 74 of the NPPF, Sport England would recommend that the Local Planpolicy is underpinned by robust and up to date assessments and strategies for indoor andoutdoor sports provision. Sport England have reviewed the Special Policy Areas and Map revisions and do not raise anobjection. If you need any further advice please do not hesitate to contact Sport England using the contactdetails below. Yours FaithfullyMark Furnish Planning ManagerT: M: E:

City of Westminster – The Mixed Use Revision to Westminster’s City Plan – Examination March 2016

Inspector’s Main Issue and Questions for the Council

Issue 1 – Has the Revision plan been prepared in accordance with the relevant legislation and regulations?

1. Has the Revision plan been prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme?

1.1 Westminster’s most recent Local Development Scheme (LDS) was bought into effect in March 2015. It includes the Special Policy Areas and Policies Map Revision (item number 3). In accordance with that document, the various stages took place on or after the provisional dates set out, as follows:

Stage LDS provisional date (earliest possible date this could be undertaken)

Actual date

Regulation 18 notification Mar/Apr 15 Mar - May 15 Regulation 19 pre-submission consultation

Apr/Jun 15 Dec 1 - Feb 16

Submission to the Secretary of State

Jul 15 May 16

Examination Sep/Oct 15 Jul 16 Adoption Dec 15 tbc

1.2 The key pre-submission consultation was some 6 months later than the earliest possible date, because revisions are carried out sequentially and resources were diverted to those revisions before this one could be progressed. However, as none of the stages was carried

1

out prior to the earliest date set out in the LDS, the revision has been prepared in accordance with the LDS.

2. Has consultation been carried out in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement and the relevant Regulations?

2.1 Westminster’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted in June 2012. Consultation on this revision accords with the relevant sections of that document, as set out on pages 9 - 14.

3. Does the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) comply with relevant legislative requirements for Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment? Does it appraise reasonable alternatives and assess the likely significant effects of policies and proposals?

3.1 The integrated impact assessment complies with all relevant legislative requirements for Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment. The IIA objectives were identified during the original scoping exercise for the strategic policies in the City Plan. As this revision builds on that work, adding greater detail, the IIA objectives remain relevant and appropriate. The IIA has been iterative and reasonable alternatives have been identified through both consultation and previous versions of the policy framework. Compliance with relevant legislation is set out in full in the IIA itself [SPA005], including paragraph 1.3.

2

4. Is it clear how the IIA has influenced the Revision plan? Is there anything in the IIA which indicates that changes should be made to the plan?

4.1 The IIA [SPA005] does set out what changes have been made as part of the iterative process of plan development as set out in paragraph 4.6 and Table 3.

4.2 The IIA does identify some areas of conflict between different objectives. For example, a negative score in relation to housing delivery for Savile Row and Mayfair. However, this is considered to be off-set by the greater benefits derived in terms of economic benefits in these small areas of Westminster.

4.3 The IIA does not suggest further changes to the revision are necessary.

5. Has the requirement for appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) been met?

5.1 Yes, as set out in paragraph 4.10 of the IIA [SPA005]. The Habitat Regulation Assessment screening report is also set out as document SPA006.

6. Has the Plan been prepared in accordance with the duty to cooperate? What has been the nature of the cooperation and on what strategic issues?

6.1 As noted in Section 6 of the Consultation Statement [SPA004], this revision is considered to have a significant impact on 2 or more planning areas, due to the regional and international importance of these business clusters. As set out in this section, it is considered that this duty has been met.

3

6.2 The most relevant work has been with the GLA, particularly in terms of the recent Mayor’s CAZ SPG, and with the London Borough of Camden in relation to Harley Street’s relationship with the emerging life sciences sector in Euston. There has been regular liaison, including commenting on the Euston Area Action Plan. Specific joint working with the Environment Agency in relation to flood risk is also evidenced. Other relationships are more general.

7. Is the Plan consistent with national planning policy? If not, what is the justification for any inconsistency?

7.1 Yes, it is consistent with national planning policy.

Issue 2 – Are the revisions to existing Policy S2 Special Policy Areas (SPAs) justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

8. The boundaries of the SPAs are geographically represented on the Policies Map. Should reference be made to the Policies Map within Policy S2?

8.1 This policy lies within Part III of the plan, Local Spatial Policies. All of these policies relate to designations on the Policies Map. In addition, Policies Map designations have relevance for other policies in the plan, such as the land-use based policies in Part IV, which relies on these designations to identify areas where particular uses are directed to, or where alternative approaches apply. It is not considered appropriate to make reference to the Policies Map in the majority of policies in the plan. It is noted that as the vast majority of the plan is already adopted, and none of them refer to the Policies Map, it is difficult to identify how this might raise issues of soundness.

4

9. Does the policy clearly define the link with the Policies Map? Should this be specifically referenced?

9.1 As noted above, no it is considered that this would be an inappropriate level of detail that would detract from the plan and would require a redrafting of the entire plan to ensure consistency. Every site within Westminster lies within at least one designation on the Policies Map, and many lie in considerably more. When considering development, it is necessary to refer to both the local plan and the policies map and local plan policies necessary to determine the planning application cannot be applied without recourse to the Policies Map, regardless of the current revision.

10. What is the rationale for creating a new SPA in Mayfair? Is this justified and supported by evidence?

10.1 The rationale for the new SPA in Mayfair relates to the international importance of this cluster of art and antiques-related businesses. As noted in SPM/OTHER/02, Britain’s share of the global art market accounts for about a third of all sales value, but this is under threat. Indeed, as noted on page 9 of SPM/WCC/04, St James’s and Mayfair is the largest concentrated art market in the world. The JLL report [SPM/OTHER/04] notes the existence of over 100 art galleries and the Royal Academy of Arts in this area. It also notes the strong agglomeration benefits of this area for the trade, as do the British Antiques Dealers’ Association in their consultation response [page 45, SPA004].

10.2 The art trade is already protected within the St James’s SPA by Policy S2 , but the galleries around Cork Street did not enjoy similar protections, despite being equally as important as St James’s, with a focus on contemporary art to complement the more Old Masters’ works more typical of St James’s. The most recent survey of galleries is shown on the map on the following page. The area also has 3 major auction houses: Sotheby’s in Mayfair, Christies in St James’s, and

5

Bonhams further to the north [SPM/WCC/04 page 3]. These three auction houses employ a total of 1,850 staff in the UK. Sotheby’s and Christies alone account for 40% of all auction sales in the UK. [SPM/OTHER/01, pages 7 and 11].

10.3 The importance of this area is also reflected in the petition attracting approximately 13,000 signatures relating to planning applications that would have resulted in the loss of art galleries in Cork Street. That such a petition could attract such interest is testament to its international importance. The consultation responses by the British Antique Dealers’ Association (BADA) and Society for London Art Dealers (SLAD) also evidence the importance. For example, SLAD notes in their consultation response [page 124, SPA004] that of the 143 London-based top UK art dealers, 39 are in the Mayfair SPA, and a further 29 in the St James’s SPA. Moreover, a quarter of the membership of the British Antique Dealers’ Association is drawn from

6

Mayfair and St James’s, with the highest concentrations of members anywhere in the country [page 45, SPA004].

10.4 There is great competition for these units from the big retail houses (e.g. Gucci) who want to be in Bond Street and the immediate area. The art galleries cannot compete with the luxury retailers and, without protection, this internationally important cluster would be lost from the area. This would be a huge loss, in terms of London’s role as a global city, world leader in the art trade, and its reputation and functioning.

11. Does the evidence justify the deletion of the East Marylebone SPA?

11.1 The ‘Westminster’s Economy’ consultation booklet was published for informal consultation in February 2014. This noted that, whilst there had been a decline in wholesale showrooms in the designated area, there was still sufficient activity to justify the SPA. A draft policy for a smaller designated area was proposed. [SPM/WCC/06, pages 17 and 28] This received a number of consultation responses questioning … In January 2015, a ‘West End’ consultation booklet was published for informal consultation. This questioned whether or not the East Marylebone wholesale showrooms should continue to be protected [SPA/WCC/07 page 15].

11.2 The decline in wholesale showrooms in the East Marylebone SPA is documented in SPM/WCC/15. The original boundary of the SPA as set out in the Unitary Development Plan [www.westminster.gov.uk/unitary-development-plan-udp] was reduced in 2010 in the Core Strategy, which later became Westminster’s City Plan, the subject of the current revisions. This reflected the survey of showrooms carried out in 2008 [SPM/WCC/15]. There was a further decline with losses or vacancies for about a further third of the showrooms.

11.3 As set out in section 2 of the consultation statement [SPA004] and in detail in paragraphs 4 - 6 in the supporting evidence SPM/WCC/14,

7

extensive efforts were taken to help inform a decision on whether or not to keep the wholesale showrooms’ protection. The findings of this engagement is set out in Appendix 7 to that document. Importantly, a number of occupiers are considering moving out of the area in any case. The formal pre-submission consultation was carried out at the same, with three responses supporting the deletion of the East Marylebone SPA, including two of the great estate landowners, and one of the wholesale showroom occupiers. The full response from Peter Meadows, a wholesale showroom occupier, clearly articulates why this designation is no longer appropriate, and is set out in SPA004 on page 105. This issue was also debated by the Cabinet Member and the City Plan sub-committee, two of whom have personal connections to the rag trade in East Marylebone. The GLA also noted that it did not give rise to strategic issues.

11.4 Overall, the evidence suggests that whilst there are still wholesale showrooms in the area, this business activity is in decline. Anecdotally we are aware of a number of wholesale showrooms having relocated to areas such as King’s Cross, West London and further afield. The remaining cluster of wholesale showrooms cannot be considered to be ‘strategic’ and meriting the same level of protection as other clusters which are proposed for protection. It lacks any of the national or international reputation or importance seen in other SPA uses. The retention of the showrooms appears to be contributing to a general decline in the area, which would otherwise be a more vibrant area given its location in London’s West End. The policy is not resulting in a thriving business district as, for the most part, relevant businesses do not want to be in this location. On this basis, releasing the area from the protection for a use which is being accommodated elsewhere would drive investment and interest, and enable the floorspace to be used more effectively to support other businesses and enterprise. For example, it is understood from the UK Screen Association that industries such as games design like to co-locate with film, television and musical recording, primarily currently in Soho. These businesses are now locating north of Oxford Street, but the creative industries generally find it difficult to secure appropriate premises due to the significant demand and lack of supply in the West End generally. It is this type of economic activity which could be occupying these spaces,

8

and would bring much better benefits to the locality and economy generally.

12. Is the definition of ‘Art Galleries’ and ‘Institutional Use’ clear within the Glossary?

12.1 Yes, it is considered that these appropriately set out what the uses are and their relationship to the Use Classes Order.

Issue 3 –Do the new SPA policies CM2.1, CM2.2, CM2.3, CM2.4 and CM2.5 set out a positively prepared strategy for the defined areas that is justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

13. General - Is the overriding purpose of the new policies clear?

13.1 Yes, each of the policies includes an overarching objective for development in the area, supported by the reasoned justification. It then sets out specific detailed policies regarding specific land uses, and provide a framework to enable decisions to be taken within these areas with a high degree of predictability and efficiency.

14. The boundaries of the SPAs are geographically represented on the Policies Map but there is no link to this within the policies themselves. Should reference be made to the Policies Map within each policy?

14.1 As for 8.1 above, no, it is unnecessary for every policy to refer to the Policies Map.

9

15. Does the Revision plan have clear and adequate mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of Policies CM2.1, CM2.2, CM2.3, CM2.4 and CM2.5?

15.1 Adequate monitoring indicators were already included in Figure 56 to enable monitoring of the strategic policy S2, and these will be used to also monitor outcomes against the more detailed CM policies.

16. Policy CM2.1: Harley Street SPA - Is the use of the term ‘in exceptional circumstances’ appropriate under point 3 when the criteria define when loss of a facility would be acceptable?

16.1 This text is necessary to convey that whilst the criteria are set out, they nonetheless represent a high hurdle. In particular, criterion b) regarding the character and function of the area is a very high hurdle and would require significant justification given the area’s role as an international centre of medical excellence. Similarly, the evidence required to demonstrate that attempts to find an appropriate occupier are unsuccessful will need to be extensive and exhaustive, particularly direct marketing to appropriate businesses.

17. Policy CM2.2: Portland Place SPA - Further to the Council’s response to question iv) of my initial letter to the Council dated 23 May 2016, should reference to ‘elsewhere in the Central Activities Zone’ be removed from the policy?

17.1 The Council is content if the Inspector wishes to recommend removal of this text from the policy.

10

18. Policy CM2.3: Savile Row - What is the rationale for limiting new A1 retail to no larger than 300 sqm gross? Why has this figure been selected rather than one that is higher or lower?

18.1 As shown in the table below, an important characteristic of Savile Row is its smaller scale units. This is crucial to the character and function of the area, its history including the historic relationship with bespoke tailoring, and as part of the heritage value within the Mayfair Conservation Area.

Business Name Address Use SQM

The Burlington Gallery Cafe

14 Old Burlington Street A3 50

William Hunt 41 Savile Row Tailor 70 Drakes 3 Clifford Street Tailor 70 Jeff Banks 36 Savile Row Tailor 80 Gianzo & Girling 39 Savile Row Clothing 80 Kathryn Sargent 37 Savile Row Tailor 80 Davies & Son 38 Savile Row Tailor 80 40 Savile Row 40 Savile Row Tailor 90 Mark Stephen Marengo 31 Savile Row Tailor 100 Richard James 19 Clifford Street Tailor 100 - 10 Old Burlington Street B1 110 - 28 Heddon Street B1 120 Scabal 12 Savile Row Tailor 120 - 2 Old Burlington Street B1 150 Ordovas 25 Savile Row Art 160 - Savile Row Vacant 170 - 1 Old Burlington Street B1 180 Hardy Amies 14 Savile Row Tailor 180 Gary Anderson 34 - 35 Savile Row Tailor 190 Henry Poole & Co 15 Savile Row Tailor 190 Norton & Sons 16 Savile Row Tailor 190 Richard James Tailors 29 Savile Row Tailor 190 Chester Barrie 19 Savile Row Tailor 200 - 28 Savile Row Vacant 210 - 17 Savile Row B1 210 Stephen Friedman Gallery 12 Old Burlington Street Art 220 Dege & Skinner 10 Savile Row Tailor 220

11

Stowers Bespoke 13 Savile Row Tailor 220 Alexander Mcqueen 9 Savile Row Tailor 220 Lanvin 31 - 32 Savile Row Clothing 220 Maurice Sedwell 19 Savile Row Tailor 230 Ozwald Boateng 30 Savile Row Tailor 300 Liaigre 52 - 53 Conduit Street Homeware 300

Welsh & Jefferies 20a Savile Row Tailor 310 Huntsman 11 Savile Row Tailor 370 Abercrombie Kids 3 Savile Row Clothing 380 Joseph 2 Savile Row Tailor 380 Sartoria 20 Savile Row A3 390 Gieves & Hawkes 1 Savile Row Tailor 400 Kilgour 7 - 8 Savile Row Tailor 460 - 5 Savile Row B1 540 Met Police 14 Savile Row Police 700 Abercrombie & Fitch 7 Burlington Gardens Clothing 770 Ordovas 25 Savile Row Art 840 - 3 Queensbury House, Old

Burlington Street B1 860

Q-Park Old Burlington Street Carpark 860 Hauser & Wirth 23 Savile Row Art 2020

18.2 Of the 47 different ground floor units, 33 of the units are 300sqm or less. This includes 20 of the 25 tailors, and both of the vacant units which could be taken by a tailoring use. The 300sqm threshold is derived from this analysis of the unit sizes, many of which have been in operation as tailors for a considerable period of time. Therefore these sized units are well suited to the uses that are most appropriate in this SPA.

18.3 The two clothing stores which exceed the threshold are of the type that this policy is intended to preclude going forward. Prior to their occupation for clothing retail, these units were a bank and an office. The scale of these retail units is not in keeping with the more subdued and smaller scale premises in the SPA. They detract from the character of the street which relies to a great extent on a long tradition of high end tailoring, in smaller, more discrete units. Going forward, with the benefit of years of discussion with the tailors and major land-owner,

12

and a better understanding of how to support the tailoring trade in this area, it is intended that the policy would ensure that retail units match the scale of the tailoring use to ensure they are in keeping with the character of the street, and enhance rather than detract from its international reputation.

18.4 The remaining units which exceed the threshold are the office blocks, police station, carpark, a fine dining restaurant and two sites including the largest site, are art galleries. All of these units are appropriate as larger units, and with the exception of the restaurant, retain the subdued and discrete character of the SPA due to their uses. In the event that these buildings become available for retail, whether through change of use or redevelopment, the new retail units should be in keeping with the characteristic smaller scale units of the SPA, and hence the 300sqm threshold. For example, this would break up long frontages into smaller units to complement the primary tailoring use, and enhance the Conservation Area, and ensure the nature of the retail was at a scale that respected the SPA and its valued qualities.

19. What retail functions would be considered to be ‘complimentary to the character and function of the Special Policy Area’? Is the policy sufficiently clear?

19.1 It is considered that the policy taken as a whole makes clear what retail functions would be complementary. For example, whilst a pawnbrokers may technically provide one of a kind products, something such as The Money Shop would evidently detract from the international reputation of Savile Row, while there are equally high end pawnbrokers found elsewhere in Mayfair that would be appropriate.

19.2 There will clearly need to be an element of judgement in each case, however, the council offers formal pre-application advice and this would enable applicants to get a view in advance of the full cost of making a formal application. However, the heritage value, uniqueness

13

and international reputation of this area makes such an approach justified and reasonable.

20. Is the restriction of residential development under point 6 justified?

20.1 Residential uses are not the most appropriate activity in Savile Row. Offices, with the activity associated with the office occupiers, complement the role of the SPA for bespoke tailoring. Residential, which is predominantly vacant during the day, detracts from the character of the SPA. This has been the subject of the long-standing discussions with the Savile Row Steering Group, the partnership of tailors’, landowners’ and council representatives. As shown in the map below, Savile Row does not have significant residential use. It is estimated that there are only 15 residential units currently on Savile Row. Accordingly the introduction of more residential would be unwelcome.

14

20.2 In the context of Westminster overall, retaining commercial activity in this street will not compromise housing delivery as this is such a small area. There are many other locations across Westminster where housing can be delivered without compromising this internationally important business cluster.

21. Policy CM2.4: St James’s SPA - Under what circumstances would the Council ‘seek the re-provision of existing gallery space’? Is the policy sufficiently clear?

21.1 Unlike the Mayfair SPA, St James’s has a broader range of appropriate uses. Therefore there is greater flexibility in this policy than in the Mayfair SPA which requires the reprovision. In St James’s, reprovision would be sought as set out in the Reasoned Justification unless an alternative would have greater benefits in terms of the unique qualities of the SPA, for example as set out in criteria 1 of the policy, and the other landuses that are encouraged and protected within the area.

21.2 It is considered that the policy is sufficiently clear to accommodate circumstances where the objectives for the SPA may be better met by the loss of an art gallery. These will need to be balanced in relation to the individual circumstances of each application, however that flexibility is appropriate in relation to such a unique and exceptional place.

22. Is point 5 necessary when reference is made to new retail development in point 3 of the policy?

22.1 One relates to protection of existing uses whilst the other relates to determining applications for new uses. Therefore they cover different types of planning applications.

15

23. Policy CM2.5: Mayfair SPA - Is there clear evidence for creating a new SPA for this area? Is the extent of the boundary justified?

23.1 See question 10

24. Is the restriction of residential development under point 6 justified?

24.1 As shown on the map at 20.1 above, the Mayfair SPA is dominated by commercial activity. However, the area does have a larger number of flats within it, estimated at about 200 units, over the wider area. The focus for the area should be more commercial uses which are crucial to the character and function of the area.

24.2 Close working with the art and antique industry identified the importance of the wider offer in the Mayfair area to support this unique cluster. The food and beverage, visitor accommodation, evening and night-time economy and the retail offer, as well as co-location with the main auction houses and the Royal Academy of Arts, are all crucial to retain business and are an important part of what attracts customers to the galleries. The customers don’t just purchase art for instance: they eat out, visit West End theatres, stay in the hotels, and visit the other shops in the area. This is all integral to the appeal and this is part of the business model. Page 10 of the JLL’s 2015 report [SPM/Other/04] notes the uses that have made this area successful, which include the art galleries. This report also notes on page 14 that the success of the area has resulted in a lack of available commercial space. The erosion of this commercial activity by further residential development fails to support sustainable local economic growth, diminishes the overall offer of the area for customers beyond the immediate interest in the art/antiques, and doesn’t deliver the agglomeration benefits that would arise with other more appropriate uses.

16

24.3 It is also noted that there is a significant supply problem across commercial sectors in this area. For every additional residential unit, there is less accommodation available for other more appropriate uses which contribute to this unique agglomeration. Whilst some housing is appropriate in the area, as is evident by the existing stock and mix, this needs to be subordinate to the provision of other uses.

24.4 As noted in relation to the Savile Row SPA in section 20 above, there are opportunities outside this SPA for delivery of housing. Given that this SPA also already has a larger number of residential units and covers a wider area, the policy would allow for a very small number of residential units to be part of any development uplift in specific cases (e.g. where the buildings is already predominantly residential) and subject to this being subordinate to the delivery of commercial floorspace generally.

24.5 Therefore it is considered that the restrictions on residential are justified and are necessary to secure the long-term future of the area by maintaining the uses that contribute to a wider attraction and offer. This will enable the area to remain globally competitive into the future. However, it is also noted that this is a wider area and that residential is more of an established feature of this area than in Savile Row. For this reason, the following change to the wording would be considered appropriate if it was considered necessary to make the revision sound:

6. New residential use is not generally appropriate within the Special Policy Area and should be subordinate to the provision of more complimentary commercial uses, including offices. The requirement for residential from office floorspace as set out in Policy S1 Mixed Use in the Central Activities Zone sections (B) and (C) does not apply in the Special Policy Area.

This would more accurately reflect the differences between this wider, more mixed area, and Savile Row.

17