Agenda item

FUL & LBC applications for:

Proposed Extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

Public Participation

There were no public speakers on this item.

Richard Hughes, (Development Team Leader, South) presented a report which recommended that subject to confirmation from Wiltshire Council Ecology that the revised generic assessment had been agreed between the Council and Natural England, to approve, subject to conditions the proposed extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities, infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

Attention was drawn to the following late observations; Wiltshire Council ecology had confirmed the phosphate matters as resolved, and the applicant had sent in a summary of issues that had been resolved as part of the planning process.

Key details were stated to include the principle of development, scale and design, impact on the historic environment/heritage assets, residential amenity, highway/transport considerations, drainage/flood risk and the impact on the River Avon Special Area of Conservation/Phosphates.

The officer presented in detail the slides as published in agenda supplement 1, which included photos of the site, the evolution of the hotel and surrounded listed buildings, plans of the previously refused scheme, plans of the extant permission (19/04857/FUL), plans of the originally submitted scheme, plans of the revised scheme, the extent of the proposed demolition, details of elevations, the relationship to adjacent properties and an overshadowing survey.

It was noted that there were 2 related applications for this item, a Full application and a Listed Building Consent application. There were many comments in the report relating to the original scheme which had now been radically changed. The wall along St. Ann’s Street had extant permission for 9 serviced apartments. The under croft would be affected by some minor works. The site was very close to neighbouring dwellings and the relationship to those was important. The glass link had been removed from the application due to Natural England objections. The proposal would mean that parking spaces in the car park would reduce from 68 spaces to 59 spaces. The overshadowing survey showed that there would  be some shadowing caused by the proposal, although the current hotel already caused overshadowing, so the proposal would have little effect.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarification was sought on the material to be used for the roof of the extension. The officer confirmed that the proposal was for a standing seam metal roof.

The unitary division member, Cllr Sven Hocking, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Hocking highlighted that economic development, business and tourism were all important but that these had to be balanced against neighbouring properties amenity as he felt that there would be a negative affect on the neighbours. Cllr Hocking stated that the materials to be used, such as the metal roof and cladding were both issues as these did not fit with the surroundings.

Cllr Hocking therefore proposed that the applications be refused on the grounds of neighbour amenity and visual amenity. This was seconded by Cllr Rich Rogers.

A debate followed where many Cllrs felt that the materials to be used, in particular the metal roof and the cladding on the facades were an issue as these would impact on the listed building and did not fit with neighbouring dwellings and surroundings. There was general favour in principle for the development for economic and tourism reasons, however the design was an issue for many. There was a debate as to whether refusal was best option as it was thought that if the applicant went to appeal they would lose, some thought that approval with extra conditions regarding the materials to be used would be the best option and others felt that deferring the application to seek clarity on the materials to be used would be better. Members also expressed surprise and disappointment that no one representing the application had come to speak at the meeting.

Clarity was sought from the planning officer on the various options available.

Cllr Sven Hocking withdrew his motion to refuse permission which was supported by his seconder Cllr Rich Rogers.

Cllr Hocking then proposed a motion to defer the application in order to seek clarity on the materials and overall design of the building given the close proximity of the building to adjacent dwellings and the impact on the listed building. This was seconded by Cllr Rich Rogers.

There was no further debate and it was;

Resolved:

That planning permission for be deferred (for both 20/10860/FUL and 21/00267/LBC) in order to seek clarity on the materials and overall design of the building given the close proximity of the building to adjacent dwellings and the impact on the listed building.