Agenda item
Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 6th April, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
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.
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 the storage space.
Beth Eite (Deputy Team Leader, Planning Services) presented the application describing the site location in the Central Activities Zone and the Wentworth Street Conservation Area showing images of public house. She referred to the previously refused scheme explaining the reasons for refusal. She also drew attention to the results of the consultation exercise carried out by the Council. The plans would create 11 hotel rooms and a public house. Therefore, this would be a mixed sui generis scheme. There would be a condition restricting use of the ground floor and basement to public house use. Furthermore due to its status as an Asset of Community Value, permitted development rights would be removed. Taken together, these two restrictions would afford the public house a high degree of protection. The provision of a small number of hotel rooms on this site complied with policy and there would be a Servicing and Delivery plan. The plans also included conditions to ensure that the relevant noise standards were met. The Committee also heard about the difficulties in providing disabled access to the hotel rooms given that this would necessitate taking trading floor space away from the public house that would affect its viability . As a result, it was considered that the drawbacks of this option outweighed the merits.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
Members raised concerns about the change of use to sui generis use questioning whether this would adequately safeguard the future retention of the public house and would change the character of the development.
Concern was also expressed about the operation of a hotel above the public house. It was feared that this would undermine its viability especially potentially resulting in a loss of a community asset. Whilst it was appreciated that the proposed arrangement might be a relatively common feature outside London and it might improve the viability of the public house, it was questionable whether it would work in this case. Reassurances were therefore sought about this and that it complied with policy.
Members also sought clarity on the number of additional servicing trips that the plans would generate and the suitability of the site to accommodate this. Questions were also asked about the reasons why the non - provision of disabled assess was felt to be acceptable in this case and the targets in policy for hotel rooms in the Borough.
Members also raised concerns about the impact of the external alterations on the character of the building given its prominence at street level. They also asked about the separation distances to the nearby Carter House.
Officers answered each of the Committees questions. It was explained that, having considered the two uses, Officers felt on balance that they would occupy an equal amount of floor space and neither would dominate. Therefore, it had been classified as a sui generis use. The conditions in the committee report would afford the public house a great deal of protection going forward. Any further change of use would require a separate planning permission. It was also confirmed that the lease issues were not a material planning issue.
It was also noted that the application had been amended to overcome the previous concerns (around harm to the viability of the public house from loss of garden space, and the proximity of the public house to the proposed residential development). As a result of the changes, Officers felt that the two uses would sit comfortable together. The pressure group CAMRA were in favour of multi - use developments as a way of enhancing the viability of public houses. There was a condition to ensure that the external alterations would match the existing building.
Officers also responded to the concerns about the lack of wheel chair access, (as explained in the presentation)the targets in planning policy for hotel rooms and the amount of hotel units granted in recent times.
In summary the Chair noted the amendments to scheme and felt that there was a degree of logic to include hotel rooms. So this was a finely balances decision. However, the Chair stated that he remained concerned about the potential loss of the public house, especially given the plans to change the public house to a mixed used as opposed to a public house with an auxiliary hotel accommodation.
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, potentially 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.
Supporting documents: