1075
The Committee considered an application for a change of use from a former post office to a hotel and restaurant, including partial demolition of the rear of the Post Office building and erection of new rear extension. The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the application is considered to be of high importance, involving the conversion and extension of a prominent and sizeable redundant building in the High Street close to heritage assets, and it being the provision of a Hotel of Significant economic benefit to the City Centre.
The Committee had before it a report in which all information was set out.
Chris Harden, Senior Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee and assisted the Committee in their deliberations. The Committee were shown plans of the site and the proposed development including an additional new walkway through the site. The Committee heard that two trees would be impacted by the site but they were on the boundary of the proposal (in neighbouring property), and were not of significant note. The Committee were shown photos of the site and heard that the proposal would include 75 new hotel rooms and had gone through many iterations to the point that the proposal was now acceptable for officers. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the application was recommended that authority to approve was delegated to officers to approve subject to receipt of the Wildlife Mitigation RAMs payment.
Harriet Vincett-Wilson (Agent) addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Planning Committee Procedure Rule 8 in support of the application. The Committee heard that the application had been submitted in 2022 and since then 8 meetings had taken place with officers to align the proposal within the heritage context of the site and confirmed that the proposal was 1 level lower than all previous iterations thus protecting the views of the nearby Church, Jumbo water tower and the Town Hall tower. The Committee heard that the proposal fitted in well with the City Centre Masterplan working to improve pedestrianisation around Jumbo and that the proposal had received the support of the economic development team and Heritage Trust.
Members debated the application on issues including: the applicant’s identity and who the operator of the hotel would be and whether it would be the Marriot group, that there were many mentions of harm in the officer report and how this related to the conservation area. It was raised that it was unacceptable that organisations to preserve historic remains had not been consulted and that the scheme before Members did create harm to the area and surrounding historical landmark.
At the request of the Chair the Senior Planning Officer responded to the points raised by in the debate. The Committee heard that the approval on site was not bound to provide the hotel and restaurant to one single supplier and this would be for the applicant to decide outside of the planning process and would also need to factor in market conditions. The Senior Planning Officer added that harm was mentioned in the report many times but that this was associated with the nature of the proposal and how this balanced with the other public benefits that were being created by the proposal.
The debate continued with Members discussing the design of the proposal and whether it was considered to be sub-optimal in the area and the surrounding landscape.
At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the aforementioned point was based on the comments made by the Urban Design Officer and that this was an accurate reflection of their comments but reminded Members that the proposal needed to be viewed in a holistic manner with all planning considerations considered, including the public benefits of the proposal. It was questioned whether the number of bedrooms on the proposal could be lower however it was established that this would cause viability issues.
Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including: that the building was currently deteriorating, that the proposal should include CCTV and lighting in the new proposed walkway and that there would be a rear entrance to the proposal for picking up and dropping off guests, and what archaeological safeguards were in place for the site.
At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the Applicant would have 3 years to start the development on the site from the decision being issued, that if Members were minded to approve the application then CCTV and lighting for the proposed new walkway could be conditioned. Further to this the Senior Planning Officer detailed that concerns regarding possible public access to the roof were unlikely to come to fruition as it was a brown roof and was only available via a hatch and ladder so would not likely create noise or disruption. In conclusion the Senior Officer confirmed that the final archaeological arrangements would be determined based upon what was found on the site.
Members continued to debate the proposal on issues including the economic benefits of the proposal, parking in the surrounding area, deliveries that would be made to the site, and bin storage facilities.
At the request of the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer responded that the number of vehicles servicing the site had been provided and confirmed that no concerns had been raised regarding this including the use of vehicles to carry and deliver laundry for the Hotel and that if there were issues with this then it could be addressed through the service delivery plan. The Senior Planning Officer concluded by detailing that the bins did have a separate storage area and that they would only be presented on the actual collection day and that an informative note could be added to the proposal, if approved, to keep any archaeological finds in situ and on display where possible on site.
The debate continued with some Members expressing concern over the size of the proposal and whether it was in keeping with the surrounding area, that the proposal would help create a cultural quarter of the City, that there were concerns regarding noise being created from the proposal and whether any separate materials could be used on the roof of the structure to be in-keeping with the roof of Jumbo (copper).
In response to the points raised by the Committee the Senior Planning Officer detailed that there was a condition on noise relating to the machinery on site.
A short break was taken between 19:23-19:30
Following the break further questions were raised regarding the proposed construction management plan, the archaeological conditions and applicant.
A Point of order was made that the applicant’s or end user’s identity was not a material consideration which was accepted by the Chair. Following this, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to receipt of RAMs payment with the additional conditions and informatives as follows:
- That a CCTV and lighting scheme is conditioned for the new pedestrian link from North Hill to Balkerne Gardens
- That an informative note is added concerning the display of archaeological finds in situ wherever possible.
RESOLVED (TEN votes FOR and ZERO votes AGAINST, with ONE ABSTENTION) that the application is approved as detailed in the officer recommendation subject to receipt of RAMs payment with the additional conditions and informatives as follows:
- That a CCTV and lighting scheme is conditioned for the new pedestrian link from North Hill to Balkerne Gardens
- That an informative note is added concerning the display of archaeological finds in situ wherever possible.