Report attached.

Councillor Tim Ryan declared a Non Pecuniary Interest on this item. Councillor Ryan remained in the meeting and took part in the discussion. Councillor Ryan stated that he recently started working with the a Councillor and that he also undertake consultancy work for the Member who was part of the Developer Team presenting this evening.

The Committee received a presentation on the proposed residential-led, mixed-use redevelopment of the former Debenhams site to provide a hotel (Class C1) with commercial space (Class E) at ground and upper floors fronting Market Place, alongside two residential buildings to the rear, connected by a communal amenity podium with commercial uses (Class E) at ground level, and a new public plaza with a freestanding commercial building (Class E), widening and landscaping works to Swan Walk.

The proposal would provide 155 homes within two towers positioned at the southern end of the site, which would be connected by a podium at lower levels, whilst the hotel at the northern end of the site would have 118 rooms.

The Committee was informed that two residential blocks at the southern end of the site are proposed at 12 and 14 storeys, with the taller of these two buildings in the south-east corner. The hotel block facing Market Place would be of a similar height to the existing Debenhams building, at 6 storeys (noting that the existing building has very high floor-to-ceiling heights and the revised scheme incorporates more floors within the same broad envelope through reduced floor-to-ceiling heights).

A Member expressed concern that the proposal did not sufficiently reflect the Masterplan vision for the Market Square. In particular, concern was raised that the frontage appeared overly uniform and modern, lacking reference to the historic medieval market context or a civic presence. It was noted that the hotel entrance represented a missed opportunity for a more distinctive and characterful design. Further concern was raised regarding the scale and bulk of the two rear buildings, which were considered overly dominant. The Member felt that further design work was required to enhance the character of the Market Square.

A Member queried the level of disabled parking provision within the scheme. Officers confirmed that five Blue Badge spaces were proposed, equating to approximately 3 per cent of provision. The Member asked whether this could be increased slightly, noting the high level of activity within the Market Square, particularly on market days.

Members queried the absence of parking provision for hotel guests and sought clarification on policy requirements. Officers advised that there is no minimum parking standard for hotels under the London Plan. Given the highly accessible town centre location and proximity to public transport, parking provision should be limited to disabled, servicing, and operational needs only. Officers explained that additional guest parking would be contrary to sustainable transport objectives and would not be supported by the GLA.

Members noted concerns that hotel guests travelling by car could place additional pressure on existing town centre parking, particularly where public transport services are unreliable. Officers reiterated that the policy approach seeks to discourage private car use in town centre locations.

Members queried the lack of general parking provision, beyond disabled and operational spaces. Officers advised that, under the London Plan, this town centre site should limit parking to disabled, servicing, and operational needs only. There is no requirement to provide parking for hotel guests, and additional parking would conflict with sustainable transport objectives. Members noted the explanation.

Members expressed concern that the proposed design and materials lacked civic presence and sufficient reference to the historic town centre context. It was suggested that greater consideration be given to active ground-floor uses, signage, and a more distinctive or artistic treatment to enhance the streetscape.

Members noted that while hotel guest parking could be accommodated elsewhere, consideration should be given to drop-off and pick-up arrangements as part of the scheme’s operation.

The following points were agreed as a summary of the Committee’s views on the development:

•           Concern that the proposals do not align with the approved masterplan and fail to adequately reflect the historic marketplace and its established character.

•           The design was considered to lack a strong civic presence, with the hotel in particular missing an opportunity to contribute positively to a civic or landmark character.

•           Concern regarding the height and massing of the development, particularly in relation to the rear buildings.

•           Issues raised in respect of parking provision, including whether parking levels should be increased and the absence of dedicated hotel parking or a drop off facility.

•           Comments were made regarding the hotel waiting and arrival areas, as well as the choice of materials, with a view that warmer and more cohesive materials could better enhance the overall design.

•           Questions were raised as to whether the ground floor design should operate at a more human scale, reflecting the character of a historic town centre, including consideration of active frontages and a clearer shopfront strategy.