Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER    

Part change of use and conversion of ground floor restaurant to four hotel rooms (C1 use) and one retail (E(a) use) and bar unit, to include insertion of two windows to rear elevation and internal alterations.

RESOLVED: That application 24/00181/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 4 and 5 and the following amendment to Condition 3, to read:

 

“Condition 3

 

The opening hours of the Restaurant (Use Class E) and Retail bar units (Use Class E) hereby permitted shall only be permitted between 09:00 hours and midnight hours Monday to Sunday.

 

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of existing residents and to comply with the provisions of policy D3 of North Herts Local Plan 2011-2031.”

Audio Recording – 7 minute 27 seconds

 

The Planning Officer gave a verbal update and advised that:

 

·       The Applicant was informed of pre-commencement conditions and had since provided the planning officer with some of the information, required by the conditions.

·       The hours pre-commencement condition requiring opening times was replaced with a condition that the opening hours be 9am to Midnight from Monday to Sunday. Environmental Health were consulted and approved these hours and unless a variance of the application was received then they would not need to reconsider the opening hours.

·       The Agent had supplied the Planning Officer with the sound proofing details and they were sent to Environmental Health who confirmed they were acceptable. The Conservation team had not been consulted and therefore this condition had been moved to the listed building consent to ensure there were no detrimental impacts from sound proofing.

·       An updated floor plan had been added with a commercial bin storage area highlighted.

·       The floor plan and sound proofing details were distributed via ModGov, which would supersede the original floor plan.

·       The material samples condition stands and had not changed.

·       A request was made by the Agent that the joinery details condition be updated to change this from a pre-commencement condition to ‘prior to any work on windows or doors’.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 24/00181/FP and 24/00182/LBC supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Louise Peace

In response to the points of clarification, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The large white canopy with two double doors would be the main entrance to the restaurant and the smaller single door as the entrance to the cheese and wine bar.

·       There was currently no permitted change from a hotel to residential.

The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed that there was no permitted change of use from hotels to residential dwellings. Whilst there was permitted change of use form Class E to residential dwellings  it was not applicable in this case because the building was listed.

 

The Chair invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Alistair Willoughby to speak against the application. Councillor Willoughby thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The plan says buildings cannot be used if they will cause serious harm or damage to the heritage sight but due to this building being vacant for a longer period the benefits to the public outweighed the damage to surroundings.

·       There was a lack of viability testing for the restaurant, the cheese and wine bar or for the third section that would be taken out of commercial use.

·       A third retail or hospitality site should take the remaining space.

·       Originally there was discussion of a stairway being necessary for access to electrical and boiler, with the staircase being in the restaurant, but that had changed and now it was said that there is access already via the communal spaces.

·       The space should have been offered to local businesses and should have prioritised economic and productive growth for the community.

·       There was no on-site parking, there was only timed or permitted and residential parking.

·       There was a risk of removing local businesses and making Baldock a ‘dormitory town’.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

In response to the points of clarification, Councillor Alistair Willoughby advised that:

 

·       The third area was being lost to hospitality as hotels were not considered hospitality.

·       The people who used the hotel stay for at least a month meaning they were not providing tourism but rather in the area for work, so they would not provide as much benefit to the local area.

·       Church Street had time limited parking Monday to Saturday and Hitchin Street also has time limited parking. There was no on street parking that would be suitable for the duration of time the venue would need. The only available parking nearby was for residential use.

·       There was only one car park that was roughly a 10 – 15-minute walk so not within convenient distant.

·       Overnight parking was only available after a certain time and cars would need to be moved early in the morning before parking restrictions applied. Additionally, those spaces were competitive.

·       There were general concerns through talking to residents about the location losing retail space due to an ongoing issue of restaurants and local businesses closing.

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that there was no definition for of hospitality in planning, as such, but the local plan identifies town centre uses and this includes hotels.

 

The Chair invited the Agent, Mr James Gran to speak in support of the application. Mr Gran thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The current use of the venue as a restaurant was seen as too large following feedback hence the application to put a second venue alongside it.

·       The front seating was always the most popular and the rear seating where the venue would be, was always the quietest.

·       The proposed contractor had been in constant discussion and communication with the applicant about leasing this new unit.

·       The proposal does reduce the overall commercial area but leaves it a viable size for operators to take on. They would still have 165 square feet of floor space.

·       With the ground floor reopening there would be more employment opportunities.

·       There would be four further hotel rooms added to the ground floor of the building, advertised as accessible rooms.

·       Only two windows need to be added to the rear of the hotel ground floor to make the additional rooms viable.

·       Due to two-hour restrictions, it was difficult during the daytime to have sit down meals and so owners must look at feasibility and sticking to evening trade to ensure profit, whilst considering rent and bills.

·       There were no public objections to the application.

·       The long-term customers would still need to spend money in town for food and supplies so they would be contributing whether they were long term or short-term guests.

The following members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

In response to the points of clarification, Mr Gran advised that:

 

·       There were twenty existing rooms in the hotel.

·       The accessibility access was the ground floor access and not wet rooms or special designs in the hotel rooms themselves.

·       There were no plans for specific disability allowance for the venue inside the hotel.

·       There was a prospective operator who were very keen to take on the unit. There had been several companies expressing interest in taking up the restaurant as well.

·       There was no projected footfall data pre and post only general footfall without data.

·       There were people who seek and get longer term accommodation and others that were at the hotel for a short term. Medium to long-term meaning three to four weeks at a time.

·       There was consideration of a third retail opportunity, but it was dismissed due to there being massive alterations to the building to create another frontage, or they could keep the main layout without major alterations and add more disability access hotel rooms instead.

·       There were currently no plans for a reception on the ground floor so would use a self-check in system where staff would be alerted to assist guests would be used.

·       There was a laundry utility space for the hotel but there would be no access for guests.

·       The hotel would not offer complimentary breakfast or meals so if they would like to eat at the restaurant, they would need to discuss accessibility with them.

N.B. Councillor Amy Allen entered the Chamber at 20.21.

 

The Chair noted the arrival of Councillor Amy Allen and advised that section 4.8.23(a) of the Constitution applied to this meeting, therefore Councillor Allen would be unable to take part in the vote on this item.

 

In response to the points of clarification, the Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       There was no normal tenure for stay in hotels if it didn’t exceed a month.

·       It was not allowed to get an additional service out of the hotel, and it would be enforceable if they were.

·       The stud wall was seen favourably by the Conservation Officer as it was easy to undo, and that bringing a listed building back into use after more than three years of inactivity would be good.

·       The project was acceptable in principle from a planning perspective and from a heritage perspective, the Conservation Officer considered the internal alterations and the changes of use to be acceptable.

·       There were sufficient and sustainable transport options to the site.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to approve planning permission and Councillor Tom Tyson seconded.

 

The following members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Louise Peace

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       With no elevator to the rest of the floors, it would not be possible for a party of 5 or more disabled individuals to stay at the hotel.

·       Even with concerns around parking there were no ground to reject, due it being suitable and fitting all requirements and it would help make use of a town centre building.

·       There was no reference on parking if people are at the hotel long term or short term and then others want to park too to attend the cheese and wine bar, the feasibility is not shown in any report.

·       The policies support this venue, but it would also be good for the community of Baldock, and that feelings and inferences were not a suitable reason to deny.

·       Assurances that the rooms could not be kept for over a month was reassuring and would prevent the hotel becoming bed sit in nature.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 24/00181/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the removal of Conditions 4 and 5 and the following amendment to Condition 3, to read:

 

“Condition 3

 

The opening hours of the Restaurant (Use Class E) and Retail bar units, (Use Class E)A hereby permitted shall only be permitted between 09:00 hours and midnight hours Monday to Sunday.

 

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of existing residents and to comply with the provisions of policy D3 of North Herts Local Plan 2011-2031.”