Agenda item

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.    reported that it sat on the corner of Bailgate and Eastgate with St. Mary Magdelene’s Parish Church (the church) adjoined to the south; the site was abutted to the rear, east and south, by residential properties; 19-23 Minster Yard, Exchequergate Lodge and 24 Eastgate

c.     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

d.    advised that the hotel had recently reopened following extensive renovation works with some works still ongoing, there had been a number of applications, including most recently for the creation of a new leisure pool and spa, which was approved by Members of Planning Committee in July 2024

e.    advised that this application sought listed building consent for a new external roof terrace on the flat roof of the 1960s extension which fronted Bailgate

f.      reported that the application would include a frameless glass balustrade, glazed screen, and access doors, with access taken from the existing fourth floor private lounge accommodation, where it was proposed to install new internal steps and a balustrade from the existing lounge to accommodate the change in levels

g.    added that the application also proposed the removal of the existing steel balcony to the south/east elevation and removal of the roof mounted water tower

h.    highlighted that a roof terrace was previously proposed on the flat roof area to the rear, east of the building as part of the original applications for internal and external refurbishment works (2023/0057/FUL and 2023/0058/LBC), however the terrace was later omitted from the applications following advice from officers that this was not an appropriate addition

i.      added that officers had concerns that this would cause harm to the setting of the listed building and adjacent listed buildings as well as views towards the Cathedral, the character and appearance of the conservation area and residential amenity

j.      reported that despite this and subsequent advice, the agent has submitted this current application for a terrace on an alternative location, to the side of the building, adjacent to Bailgate

k.     advised that in addition to this listed building consent application, an accompanying application for full planning permission had been submitted (2024/0617/FUL) and considered by Planning Committee as the previous agenda item this evening

l.      confirmed that this listed building consent application considered the proposals, including any internal alterations, in relation to the impact on the application property as a designated heritage asset

m.   confirmed that both applications were being presented to Members of the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Murray

n.    highlighted that responses had been received from the church and the Cathedral Estates Department in relation to both the full and listed building consent applications, however, as the comments raised related to visual amenity, residential amenity and noise and disturbance, they could not be considered as part of this application i.e. they related to matters other than the impact on the application property as a designated heritage asset and their responses were therefore copied and considered as part of the assessment of the full planning permission report

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

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

·       Policy S57: The Historic Environment

·       National Planning Policy Framework

·       Planning Practice Guidance- Historic Environment

17. advised of the issues to be assessed in relation to the planning application, as follows:

r.      outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

s.     concluded that:

·       Officers recommended that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed glass balustrade and the use of the existing flat roof as an external terrace would cause unacceptable harm to the architectural and historic interest of the building and to its setting and significance.

·       The level of less than substantial harm had neither been appropriately justified nor was it outweighed by a public benefit.

·       The application would therefore be contrary to CLLP Policy S57 and the NPPF.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

Members asked whether approval of this Listed Building Consent application would be helpful to the applicant should an amended revised full planning application be submitted.

The Assistant Director of Planning advised that Listed Building Consent application approval needed to be based on the specific material implications in front of us this evening.

Members asked whether a new application could be submitted.

The Principal Planning Officer and the Principal Conservation Officer advised that this same Listed Building application could be resubmitted with a revised full application. If there were no reasons for refusal it would still stand against the same policies, unless there was a change in planning policy in the meantime.

RESOLVED that the listed building consent planning application be refused on the grounds of:

• The glass balustrade would have no meaningful relationship with the prevailing architectural language of the grade II listed White Hart Hotel, causing harm to the significance of the historic façade;
• The glass balustrade, along with the activity, noise and lighting associated with the use of the roof as an external terrace, would be a modern and incongruous addition which would diminish and harm the architectural significance of this designated heritage asset;
• The proposal would be prejudicial to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, its significance and setting, contrary to CLLP Policy S57 and NPPF paragraphs 212 and 213;
• The less than substantial harm which would be caused to the significance of the listed building had not been justified in terms of the tests set out within paragraph 215 of the NPPF and was not outweighed by a public benefit, providing an external terrace for use by private members of the hotel; and
• The proposal failed to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possessed and was therefore contrary to the duty contained within section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act).