Issue - meetings
Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489)
Meeting: 27/04/2016 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489) PDF 80 KB
Proposal:
Change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis). Erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Additional documents:
- PA 15 02489 - Duke of Wellington Toynbee Street FINAL, 06/04/2016 Development Committee, item 5
PDF 880 KB
- Update Report, 06/04/2016 Development Committee, item 5
PDF 31 KB
Decision:
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation and 4 against the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
Councillor Marc Francis moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the 27th April 2016 Committee report and on a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against, it was RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission at Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE be REFUSED for the change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis). Erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms (PA/15/02489)for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report.
Loss of the public house
2. As a result of the potential for noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the hotel the proposed inclusion of 11 hotel bedrooms above the public house would threaten the vitality and viability of the existing Duke of Wellington Pub which therefore fails to protect its function as community infrastructure. As such the proposal would be contrary to policy SP01 of the Core Strategy 2010, and policies DM2 and DM8 of the Managing Development Document (2013), policy 3.1(b) of the London Plan 2015, National Planning Policy Framework (2010) and the National Planning Policy Guidance.
Servicing
3. Insufficient information has been provided with the application to demonstrate that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding street network through the servicing requirements generated by the proposal, contrary to policies SP09 of the Core Strategy 2010 and DM20 of the Managing Development Document 2013 which seeks to ensure that new development does not have an adverse impact upon the safety and capacity of the road network.
Wheelchair accessible rooms
4. The application fails to provide any wheelchair accessible bedrooms contrary to policy 4.5 of the London Plan 2015 which seeks to ensure that developments contribute to providing a suitable choice and range of accommodation for all visitors to London by including a minimum of 10% of new hotel rooms as wheelchair accessible.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the change of use of the public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis) with the erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
It was noted that the Committee previously considered the application on 6th April 2016 with an Officer recommendation to approve the application. Nevertheless, Members resolved not to accept the application for the following four reasons:
· The potential loss of the public house as a result of a change to a sui generis use.
· Lack of wheelchair accessible bedrooms.
· Insufficient information on the servicing requirements of the scheme and the potential detrimental impact this will have on the surrounding street network.
· Impact to the character and appearance of the building and surrounding conservation area resulting from the construction of the proposed extension and resultant loss of the roof terrace.
Officers had since assessed these reasons and their findings were set out in the Committee report.
Beth Eite, (Planning Services Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report reminding Members of the site location showing images of the site. Since the last meeting, Officer had drafted three detailed reasons for refusal (based around the first three concerns detailed above). However, in relation to the fourth reason, Officer had not prepared a reason for this as Officers did not consider that it could be defended at appeal given the modest nature of the external changes amongst other matters.
The Officers recommendation remained to grant the application. However if Members were minded to refuse the application, the three reasons in the Committee report were recommended.
In response, a Member asked about the reason for excluding the fourth reason put forward by the Committee (at the last meeting). The Member remained concerned that the alterations could harm the character and the appearance of the building and the area. In responding, Officers confirmed that they did not consider that the impact would be that significant given as mentioned above, the modest nature of the plans (that would be subject to a condition requiring that the materials match the existing building), and that the terrace was a of little heritage value.
Members also asked if the building could be listed to preserve the character of the building, given the Committee’s concerns around this issue. Officers, in response, reminded Members that whilst it was not a listed building, it was an Asset of Community Value offering the building a degree of protection. Members could request, under a separate process, that the building was listed and the process for adding the building to the list of locally listed buildings and that for statutory listed buildings was explained.
Members also sought assurances about the quality of the proposed hotel accommodation, in particularly whether the rooms would be large enough. Officers replied that whilst they ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 06/04/2016 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489) PDF 880 KB
Proposal:
Change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis). Erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 5 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE for change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis), the erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms. (PA/15/02489)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· That the operation of a hotel above the public house would undermine its viability, potential resulting in the loss of a community asset.
· The proposed change of use from public house to a mixed use sui generis.
· That the proposed external alterations would harm the setting of the existing building and the setting of the Conservation Area.
· Impact on residential amenity.
· Inadequate servicing provision.
· Lack of wheelchair assess.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the proposal for the change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis) with the erection of two storey extension to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
The Chair of the Committee then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Dale Ingramand VinnyMulhern (tenant of the public house)addressed the Committee in objection to the application speaking on behalf of customers of the public house. They considered that the proposal would harm the viability of the public house, which they submitted was a community asset, potentially leading to its loss given: the uncertainties around the continued use of the garden, (that was a major income generator for the public house), business disruption during construction, the conversation to sui generis use that could open the way up for 100% flats at the site and loss of use of the accommodation upstairs. They also questioned the need for a further hotel in the area given the oversupply of hotel accommodation in the area. The applicant had failed to demonstrate the need for this. They also expressed concern about the quality of the servicing arrangements, that no noise assessment had been submitted and that the proposal would adversely affect residential amenity. The application should be refused planning permission.
In response to Members questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the servicing arrangements given the restrictions on parking in the area and the highway, the likelihood of complaints from the hotel residents jeopardising the business potential of the pub, the proposed restrictions on the garden, and the impact of these issues on the viability of the public house.
Peter Munnelly addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He responded to the points raised by the speaker reassuring Members that the pub space and garden would be retained and the plans included conditions to secure this. The current set up was unsustainable. The two uses would be entirely separate (save for hotel customers checking in and out of the hotel from the public house). The heritage assessment concluded that the impact in this regard would be acceptable. Whilst mindful of the site constraints, the parking and servicing arrangements had been in place for many years and there would be a Servicing and Delivery Plan. In summary, the application differed considerable from the previously refused scheme and echoed many similar developments. Therefore was recommended for approval.
In response to Member questions, he stressed the need to focus on the planning issues, not commercial issues. He also explained that given the modest nature of the proposal, the impact on the highway from trips to and from the development would be minimal. He also stated that it was intended that the garden would be a key feature of the public house and the new hotel. He also answered questions about the size and quality of the proposed hotel rooms and ... view the full minutes text for item 6