5 Strand - Residents & Ward Councillor Meeting

This document has been marked as Non-Confidential

5 Strand – Residents & Ward Councillor Meeting

Project:

5 Strand

Stakeholders:

Craven Street Residents and St. James’s Ward Councillors

Date & Time:

19th October 2022 – 5pm – 6:30pm

In-Person/Virtual

In-Person/Virtual hybrid

Attendees:

        

James Anderson (Whitbread) (JAN) Jonathan Langdon (Whitbread) (JL) Jacqui Allum (Whitbread) (JAL) Nathan Parsad-Wyatt (Concilio) (NP) Imogen Bath (Concilio) Stephen Gregory (Concilio) Beverley-Ann Donald (Concilio) Louise Hyams (Westminster Councillor – St James’s ward) (LH) Tim Mitchell (Westminster Councillor – St James’s ward) (TM)

Format: Introductions, Whitbread presentation from James Anderson, Jonathan Langdon, Jacqui Allum and Nathan Parsad-Wyatt followed by an open Q&A. Questions and Answers Traffic and Access -

-

-

-

MD: Do you see Craven Street and Northumberland Street as the primary vehicular route and where will the entrance be? o JL: The current thinking is to place the entrance on the Craven Street side of the building, facing east. The bar and restaurant will front the Strand, mainly for residents but open to others. Hotel reception will be on Craven Street, halfway down but not as far as residents. o MD: Roughly where Santander cycles are? o JL: Yes, roughly there – we are still developing those designs but that is our current thinking.

MD: Service route details? o JL: Not sure of what the route will be; this will be discussed with our transport consultant RGP. Off-street/on-street will be looked at, off-street being underground as a loading bay. o MD: Already a current issue with lorries blocking the street. This will be compounded by 7 Northumberland Street and this development. Will be an ongoing issue. o JAN: This is a lot of useful information that we will take to the transport consultant. o JL: We have looked at the 2019 transport traffic statement that was consented and aim to improve on that. Due to scale of Premier Inn operation in Westminster and London, we will be able to consolidate deliveries with other hotels, meaning an improvement on the previous statement for instance, a reduction in the number of drop offs and deliveries.

MD: Where would taxi drop-offs be? o JL: On the Strand but we are not a luxury hotel, so anticipate that most will come by public transport so minimal expected.

JAL: Do not accept coach bookings, there may be taxis potentially, but site is near main transport hubs, most people will access the site by public transport.

RB: Very thankful for the early meeting. Very concerned about traffic at all aspects of the project: during demolition, construction and running of hotel. People will arrive by car or will you stop that? Will there be on street parking for the hotel guests? Will there be parking on curtilage? o JL: No parking for guests, do not expect guests to drive to the hotel or restaurant.

This document has been marked as Non-Confidential

o

-

RB: Will there be parking for staff? Or external people? Will there be a layby on Strand/off Strand. Not like Savoy but similar? Concerned about the noise during demolition and construction. Also concerned about overlooking on Craven Street. 7 Northumberland Street plans were altered due to Craven Street concerns with overlooking. Also want to emphasise that it is a conservation area. o JL: No staff/guest parking at all. Has understood that transport/logistics need a subsequent meeting. RGP are very experienced transport consultants that have worked with Whitbread for many years. They know our operations well and have a lot of data on deliveries. We will be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss transport and highways as part of the planning process. o With regards to overlooking, we understand no one wants overlooking- from the hotel either. If there are sensitive windows overlooking, can have slated louvers, or made oblique. Will address the overlooking issues in the design process. o RB: Good that we are starting these conversations, still concerns with overbearing.

AO: Main issue is traffic and noise/pollution during construction but thankful for organising this to continue the conversation.

Design, layout and offer -

-

-

-

PW: Concerns about the look as Sandown Premier inn is ugly, will it be generic and 90s looking? o JL: Agreed not a pretty building o PW: Do not want to create an ugly building that in 10-20 years’ time will be pulled down. o JL: Take that onboard and do not want to create an ugly building, want it to look beautiful. o JAL: Farringdon Premier Inn is beautiful with cladding. o PW: Will the windows open? o JAL: Windows will not open to reduce noise, but they do have aircon. o JAN: Closed window buildings are more energy efficient.

PW: Will the height be the same as the 2019 application that got consent? o JL: Not proposing an increase in height, there may be marginal changes on the back of the south of the building but nothing considerably different to what is consented.

JW: In the previous application, the plant was going to be under the Craven passage near Cornerhouse Street.

Where will it be in this plan? o JAL: Does not know the location of the plant but recognised the need for it to be quiet. o JW: Notes that Craven Street have previously been bothered by noise at the other end of the Street by the Corinthia.

FR: How many rooms? o JL: Do not know at present as still developing the final scheme. Hyatt scheme (previous application) had 200, Premier Inn want to increase on this. Number may be higher but will have lower impact, for example no roof top bar, lower levels of noise. Will come back to residents on bedroom numbers in due course. o FR: Any function rooms proposed? o JL: No, bedrooms plus front of house, back of house and ground floor food and beverages.

Construction -

-

JW: During the building process, people will go up/down Craven St, lots of lorries delivering for Charing Cross and on the Strand. Will they have to reverse up Craven Street? o JL: At this stage they do not know. o TM: It seems unlikely that you could get around the reversing. o JW: Lots of reversing noise already.

FR: How long will it take to build? o JL: It is a big building and project. Hoping to deal with the demolition separately to the building works, start the demolition sooner. It will be circa three years once started. o FR: When are you hoping to start? o JL: If planning is secured mid-2023, then early 2024 would be the earliest we could start the work as there will need to be a full design and tender process.

This document has been marked as Non-Confidential

o o

-

-

TM: You could start earlier because of the previous consent, could complete the demolition.

JL: Yes, we could do the demolition but beyond that have been advised by our planning consultant to submit a fresh application. Would want to start beginning of 2024. o FR: Finish 2026? o JL: Yes finish 2026 (hopefully). They are broad aspirations.

PW: During demolition and build, the bridge and the party wall are the biggest concerns. o RB: Party Wall agreement issue? Will there be a new agreement? o JL: Same consultant appointed as from the previous application that negotiated the party wall agreement. will definitely need new awards, good level of documentation last time, same process will be followed. o RB: Always a problem with party wall issues, just how significant the issue will be. Good document needed on both sides. o PW: New photos needed from apartments.

TM: This will be the fifth Premier Inn in this ward, let alone borough. The difference here is compared to others is that this is a completely new build. With the other Premier Inn hotels, the ward councillors hear nothing from local residents: no light impact nor the comings and goings etc.

Main issue how the impact of construction is handled, especially with 7 Northumberland Street construction. Plus, comings and goings of the Street, the previous applicant wanted to change the road layout. o Issues are different because of party Wall issues. o For the wider street concerns this includes the construction impact with lorries, the 18 th/19th century vaults and when the hotel is open issues for example, coaches parking.

Consultation -

-

-

LH: On big developments, in the past a resident liaison group has been formed to meet frequently to express feelings and to be informed - regular engagement. Residents know there is a forum o JL: Yes, something we will do/consider o JAN: Want to everyone to be a part of the conversation.

JAN: With communication in building a website and communicating with people, if anyone knows of people without digital access who would want to be informed could they let them know. o TM: Less likely that people will be digitally excluded but more that their lifestyles hinder engagement. o NP: We want to update people as much as possible, everyone in attendance, with permission, will be added to the mailing list to be given regular updates. o MD: Tricky to track down Freeholders. o NP: Will do everything possible to contact the right people.

PW: Very thankful for how early residents have been involved.

AO and RB both thanked the team for reaching out at this early stage.

Other -

-

-

RB: Asks that any Section 106s consider the residents around the hotel and not something 2 miles away o TM: Agrees completely, CIL/s106 money should not be used in the wrong area. o LH: There are big issues with how CIL/s106 money is used. o RB: Should I be talking to the Cabinet member about that then? o TM: Only far in the future. If the applicant specifies early on in the application what their ambitions are and evidenced lots of community engagement then it will be very persuasive. o RB: Wants to get together with the Councillors to discuss what the residents want to go to the developer with. o TM: Thinks this is a good idea.

JW: The walkway was not done correctly when bikes were put in, a big puddle is created as poor drainage. Also issue with telephone boxed o TM: That would be an issue to raise with Historic England.

LH: The telephone boxes are awful, and many arguments have been had over them.

PW: Party wall, will it be staying? o JL: Not sure, have not established the methodology, so will come back to the residents on that.

This document has been marked as Non-Confidential

-

MD: Particular issue with vaults that extend under the Georgian terrace houses that extend under the road itself - the freeholders own them. What is the status with additional road traffic? During construction and operation. Is there a risk of stress? Whose would be responsible for this? o LM: Do they go under road? o MD: Yes, several feet out under road on both sides. o JL: New to me, unaware of it. o MD: Previous transport plan does not take it into account, needs to be. o TM: There are lots of peculiarities towards the station of which people are unaware.

NP closed the meeting by thanking everyone for attending, residents and Councillors were very thankful for the early engagement and the organisation of the meeting.