Agenda item

(The Chairperson, having declared an interest in the following two items, left the meeting while they were under consideration.)

(Councillor Maskey in the Chair.)

            The Principal Planning officer presented the Committee with the details of the application.  He outlined that the demolition and alterations included the:

·        dropping of window cills and installation of new aluminium framed windows;

·        removal and relocation of existing doors to form fire exits;

·        removal of existing roller shutter door and installation of a new entrance door;

·        removal of existing doors and installation of new aluminium framed windows;

·        demolition of wall sections and formation of new window openings;

·        alteration of existing window configurations; and

·        demolition of existing internal columns, stairs and removal of lift shafts and non-structural internal walls.

            The Members were advised that the key issues which had been considered during the assessment of the proposal included:

·        the principle of the proposal at that location;

·        demolition, impact on amenity / character of the area, Conservation Area and listed buildings;

·        design and layout of the proposed accommodation;

·        impact on transport and other infrastructure;

·        flood and drainage risks;

·        amenity and contamination issues;

·        Employability and Skills; and

·        Developer contributions.

            The Principal Planning officer explained that the site comprised a vacant unlisted former warehouse/commercial building located within the Cathedral Conservation Area. The area was commercial in character and use, comprising office, retail, and bar, food/restaurant uses.

He reported that the scheme would introduce a three-storey extension above both 21- 23 Victoria Street and 41-43 Waring Street, with internal demolition to enable the new floor layouts to be achieved. The Members were advised that the extension had been subject to detailed discussions through the preapplication discussion (PAD) process with both the Council and HED, and that it had evolved significantly from the initial iterations in an effort to address concerns around scale, height massing and design of the proposed extension. The Committee was advised that the current proposal was considered acceptable in scale, form and massing and design. The acceptability of a three storey extension was a key consideration and was much discussed during the PAD. Overall, the extension was considered acceptable following key design changes to minimise its impact on the character and appearance of the host building, the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area.

The Members were advised that weight had also been given to the value of retaining and re-using the original, vacant buildings, given that a previous permission had included the demolition of both buildings, and the efforts made to ensure that the design and elevational treatment were of suitable quality to compliment and respect the surrounding buildings.

Some internal demolition works were proposed, however, given the positive response from HED and the Conservation Officer, the extent and nature of demolition was considered acceptable. A method statement detailing the methodology and ‘making good’ of all demolition works would be required by condition in order to ensure the protection of historic features. The Members were advised that the Urban Design Officer had also considered the design solution to be acceptable and would not adversely impact on the local townscape. The proposal was therefore considered acceptable in relation to heritage issues, as set out in the SPPS and PPS6.  No other consultees had any objections subject to conditions and/or informatives.

The Principal Planning officer reported that the application had been neighbour notified and advertised in the local press and that one objection had been received in relation to the retention of a heritage, tiled street sign.  He explained that the sign would be retained as part of the proposals.

He drew the Committee’s attention to the Late Items pack, whereby a final consultation response had been received from Environmental Health, on 9th June, confirming it had no objection subject to conditions and informatives, including a proposed hours of use restriction on the hotel bars.

The Committee was also advised that correspondence had been received, on 13th June, from Beannchor, the owner/operator of the nearby Merchant Hotel, advising that they had:

·         not received a neighbour notification;

·         no objection in principle to hotel use at the site but that they had concerns about the scale, height and massing of the extension and impact on the listed Merchant Hotel building; and

·         concerns about the proximity of the proposed extension which might give rise to noise, odour and overlooking and overshadowing impacts on the amenity of residents within their hotel.

The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that notification had been undertaken in accordance with standard practice.  He reported that neighbour notification letters had been sent to the bar and the hotel at “35-39 Waring Street” on 1st March 2022.  He further advised that correspondence indicated that Beannchor was aware of the planning application back in May 2021 and therefore no prejudice had occurred.  He explained that the issues raised by Beannchor had been considered within the committee report.  He added that HED, the Conservation officer and Urban Design officer had no objections to the scale, height and massing of the proposal and that Environmental Health had considered noise and odour information and had no objections subject to conditions.  The Committee was advised that no harmful overlooking issues arose due to the location of existing window positions. The window positions of the upper floor extension would not overlook adjacent properties to an unacceptable degree given the city centre context and filtering by rooftop structures and plant on neighbouring buildings.

The Committee was advised that two further emails had been received from Beannchor requesting that the Committee would defer consideration of the application and reiterating their concerns about overshadowing. The Principal Planning officer advised the Committee that it was considered that there would be no unacceptable overshadowing, taking into account the separation distance between the proposal and the adjacent hotel, the orientation of the buildings, the city centre location/tight urban grain, the proposed and existing uses as hotels and not in permanent residential dwelling use and for efficient use of land.

            Councillor Maskey, in the Chair, welcomed Mr. M. Worthington, agent, to the meeting. 

Mr. Worthington advised the Committee that the main area of interest had concentrated on the design and the potential for impact on the Cathedral Conservation Area and the listed buildings around the proposal.  He explained that the design was an area which had taken some deliberation to finalise but that it had been dealt with in a positive manner by the Council, the consultees and the applicant and had resulted in a final proposal which had been recommended for approval.  He confirmed that the applicant was content to the proposed planning conditions and with the proposal for a Section 76 Planning Agreement in respect to employability and skills provision. 

            In response to a Member’s question, the Principal Planning officer advised the Committee of the issues which had been raised by HED during the PAD process.  He advised the Committee that the issues around the style of windows and the paint colour would be conditioned as part of any approval.

The Committee granted approval to the full planning application and to the demolition consent, subject to conditions, with delegated authority given to the Director of Planning and Building Control to finalise the wording of the conditions and agreed to enter into a Section 76 Planning Agreement with the applicant to secure employability and skills Developer Contributions.