Agenda item
Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 27th April, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
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:
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 were relatively small, they were no restrictions in policy on hotel room size. Therefore a reason based on this issue would be very difficult to defend at appeal.
In summary, it was noted that there had been a lengthy discussion on the application at the last meeting. At which Members voiced a number of concerns that would have provided the applicant with a good understanding of their issues with the scheme. The Chair also added that whilst the plans were an improvement on the previous application, Members remained concerned about the potential loss of the public house from the application. The Chair also commented that he supported the omission of the fourth suggested reason (regarding the impact of the external alternations) for the reasons set out in the 27th April Committee report.
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.
Supporting documents:
- Duke of Wellington deferral (2), item 5.1 PDF 80 KB
- PA 15 02489 - Duke of Wellington Toynbee Street FINAL, 06/04/2016 Development Committee, item 5.1 PDF 880 KB
- Update Report, 06/04/2016 Development Committee, item 5.1 PDF 31 KB