Agenda item

(Councillors Longbottom and Roper rejoined their seats for the remainder of the meeting)

(Councillor Wood remained outside of the meeting having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of the planning application to be considered. She took no part in the discussion or vote on the matter to be determined)

The Assistant Director of Planning:

a.    referred to the application property the White Hart Hotel, a grade II listed building, located on the corner with Bailgate and Eastgate within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area

b.    detailed the City Council’s Principal Conservation Officer’s description of the history of The White Hart Hotel, being a complicated site comprising four distinct building phases along the street scene

c.     advised that the hotel had recently reopened following extensive renovation works with some alterations still ongoing, there were a number of approved and ongoing current applications, including this planning application

d.    advised that the application sought listed building consent for internal alterations to the site to create a new leisure pool and spa, including the excavation and construction of the pool, construction of internal partitions to form a sauna, changing facilities and gym together with associated drainage and services

e.    outlined the proposals in further detail as follows:

·       The proposed application works would be located towards the rear of the building, adjacent to Eastgate.

·       A pool was previously proposed in this location as part of original applications for internal and external refurbishment works (2023/0057/FUL and 2023/0058/LBC), although it was omitted to allow for the necessary archaeological work and investigations associated with the pool to take place.

·       The vents for the pool would be incorporated within the overall roof mounted plant that was approved as part of the previous applications. The previous applications also approved alterations to some of the windows on the Eastgate elevation, adjacent to the location of the pool. There were no external alterations proposed as part of this application.

f.      advised that in addition to this listed building consent application, an accompanying application for full planning permission had been submitted (2024/0087/FUL) and considered by Planning Committee as the previous agenda item this evening

g.    confirmed that listed building consent applications considered proposals in relation to the impact on buildings as designated heritage assets, whereas the full application considered the proposals in relation to other matters; such as archaeology and residential amenity

h.    reported that a number of objections had been received in relation to both applications, although many of the objections raised within the responses to this listed building consent application could not be considered here as they related to matters other than the impact on the heritage asset; these responses were therefore included within the full planning application report and the relevant material planning considerations raised taken into account as part of the consideration of that application

i.      detailed the history to the application site within the officer’s report

j.      provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

·       Policy S57: The Historic Environment

·       National Planning Policy Framework

11. advised that the issue to be assessed in relation to the planning application, was the impact on the building as a designated heritage asset

l.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

m.   concluded that the proposals were acceptable and would not be prejudicial to the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building, in accordance with CLLP Policy S57 and guidance within the NPPF.

Dr Samantha Stein addressed Planning Committee in objection to the proposed planning application for listed building consent. She covered the following main points:

·       She considered that the gym would be a stunning addition which could be extended without underground investigation.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework stated that where development sustained harm, the local planning authority should refuse consent unless there was a public benefit to avoid the loss.

·       The swimming pool should be built above ground.

The Assistant Director of Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

·       This application did not consider archaeology above ground. It was seeking listed building consent.

·       Focus on the partition walls was the issue at hand.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

RESOLVED that the application for listed building consent be granted, subject to the following conditions:

·       Time limit of permission

·       Development in accordance with approved plans.