50-room apart-hotel variation at La Reserve Hotel, London SW6

What was proposed

The application sought changes to an approved 50-room apart-hotel, including a second basement, footprint changes and alterations to elevations, windows and the roof.

“Description: Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) and condition 20 (flood risk assessment) of planning permission ref: 2022/03682/FUL granted 1st May 2024 for the 'The retrospective demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a four-storey plus basement building for use as 50no. apart-hotel complex (Use Class C1)'.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was under construction in a conservation area and adjoined residential properties, Buildings of Merit, a day nursery and a football stadium.

“The site is currently under construction in connection with the implementation of the 2024 parent planning permission Ref: 2022/03682/FUL for a hotel redevelopment for a 50-bed apart-hotel. On site works have been paused whilst the current part retrospective application is under consideration. The site was previously occupied by a three storey plus basement, semi-detached building, situated on the north side of Fulham Road.”

“The application site adjoins a residential development (Hilary Close) to the rear, with Chelsea Football Stadium beyond that. To the west the site adjoins Nos. 430 and 432 Fulham Road, a pair of three storey plus semi basement Buildings of Merit, occupied by a day nursery and residential units respectively. To the east, sits the three storey plus basement flatted development of Bovril Court.”

Officer report

Planning history and unauthorised works

An earlier hotel redevelopment was approved in 2024, but a second basement had been substantially built without the required planning consent before this application.

“Pre‑application advice was sought in May 2025 for amendments to the 2024 permission for a 50‑bed apart‑hotel. The proposals included introducing a second basement beneath the approved single‑storey basement, along with minor changes to the ground‑floor footprint, elevations and roof. During these discussions and an on‑site meeting, officers became aware that unauthorised works had already commenced.”

“In this case, preapplication discussions were terminated as soon as it became clear that the proposals involved unauthorised works. The proposals were referred to senior officers in the planning enforcement team and after an initial investigation the applicants were advised to submit a retrospective Current Proposals 1.20 The original planning permission ref: 2022/03682/FUL was granted on 1st May 2024 for the retrospective demolition of existing buildings and the…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the established hotel use remained unchanged and the amendments were considered acceptable for design, heritage, amenity, flooding, transport and sustainability.

“Land Use: The principle of the apart-hotel (Class C1) has already been established under the parent permission Ref: 2022/03682/FUL and remains unchanged by the proposed variation. The amendments relate solely to design refinements and basement alterations which do not alter the nature of the approved use. The uplift in floorspace results in a small increase in the scheme’s contribution to employment and economic benefits.”

“Design, Appearance and Heritage: The principle of redevelopment, including the scale, massing, footprint and overall design of the replacement aparthotel, was established under planning permission Ref. 2022/03682/FUL. The proposed amendments at basement level are not visible from the street and are acceptable in principle. The minor footprint adjustments, and alterations to the roof do not significantly change the approved height, scale or massing.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Historic England, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency raised no objections, while ten addresses submitted objections.

“Statutory Consultees 2.7 Historic England – raised no objections.”

“Health and Safety Executive – raised no objections as the proposals do not trigger their consultation requirements.”

Officer report

What residents objected to

Objections covered development scale, loss of outlook and light, construction nuisance, enforcement, flooding, structural effects, traffic, pollution, safety and inadequate communication.

“Inappropriate scale and intensity of development • Original design should be retained • Departure from approved drawings not justified • Loss of outlook, daylight/sunlight • Double basement causes extensive work and nuisance/ disruption • Pattern of unauthorised development and lack of enforcement • Previous conditions to protect amenity were ignored/ robust conditions are needed to safeguard amenity • Clarity regarding who is responsible for redevelopment of the area •…”

“Planning enforcement is discretionary, and each case is considered on an individual basis. Under national guidance councils are obliged to act proportionately and only take action when dealing with unauthorised breaches that result in demonstrable harm. The Council will usually invite a planning application to assess whether unauthorised works comply with policy.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Roy Asagba-Power gave a presentation, confirmed an increased economic-development contribution, and the agent spoke in support.

The decision

The committee authorised planning permission subject to the report’s conditions and Addendum changes, including a restriction on bedrooms in the lowest basement.

“An Addendum was circulated prior to the meeting that modified the report and this was verbally corrected to include the following:”

“Page 357, Add new Condition: 53) No Bedrooms on Basement Level 2 The lowest level (Level 2) of the basement hereby approved shall not be used for bedrooms or other guest accommodation and shall only be used in connection with, and incidental to, the ancillary and back of house use of the hotel.”

Minutes