Lymington Society Objection
to Ford's Redevelopment Application - June 2010
95473 – 47-48 St Thomas Street
Introduction
This application is made to satisfy the Town and
Country Planning (Use Classes ) Order 1987 (as amended), which excludes change
of use from the existing A1 category to A4 from Permitted Development Rights.
A4 is a recently defined category which postdates saved policy BU-TC2
so there is no direct guidance on the factors bearing upon consent for such
a change, but the separation of the A4 category from A1 to A3 by the hurdle
of planning consent implies a stiffer test of justification for the change.
It might be argued that the identity of the applicant
is irrelevant, but it does suggest a scale of probable operations, and so
of consequences, which can not be ignored. J D Wetherspoons is a national pub and food
chain trading on a low-cost, high-volume business plan, which has expanded
rapidly and aggressively since it was founded in 1979. In 2009 it reported total sales of £955 million
derived from 731 pubs, equal to average sales of £1.3 million per pub.
It now has well over 750 outlets, and continues to expand.
By all accounts it is a well-run, family-friendly business,
but it trades on a scale far above that of existing Lymington pubs.
We do not know the sales target
for the proposed new outlet, but if set at even 50% of the chain average it would be similar to the combined takings
of the existing nearby pubs in St Thomas’
Street and around the corner into Southampton Road, including The Fusion Inn,
The Thomas Tripp and The King’s Arms.
The public consultation stage of the application
has drawn 200 responses so far, 183 of them objections. This unusually high – indeed, probably unprecedented
- level of response to a Change of Use application demonstrates serious concern
among the town's residents about the appropriateness of the location for its
intended purpose, and the likely social and other consequences should the
application be granted.
Less noted, but probably more far-reaching, is
the likely effect of the proposed change of use upon the balance and vitality
of the whole High Street, which has yet to be fully understood by either residents
or LPA. The arrival in the small town
of Lymington of a national chain of such size and ambition, which can prosper
only by making massive sales at discount prices, would not be a routine matter
of adding another pub to those already supplying the town's domestic leisure
needs. The effect on the High Street
and on the wider town would be large and adverse.
Factors Affecting the Decision
Policy. Of 22 change
of use applications made to the NFDC since 2007, 16 have been granted, five
refused (one of which was allowed on appeal) and one withdrawn. None of them sought to enter the new category
A4 and, as discussed below, none appears comparable in scale or likely consequences
to the current application.
The relevant planning policies identified by the
Case Officer are:
Core
Strategy: CS1: Sustainable development
principles
CS2:
Design quality
CS3: Protecting and enhancing our special environment
(Heritage and Nature Conservation)
CS10:
The spatial strategy
Saved Policies:
BU-TC2: Shopping frontages outside the primary shopping area within
defined town centres
DW-E23:
New development in conservation area
LP-4:
Burgage plots
The Policy Officer consultee response curiously
makes no comment on the relevance or
implications of CS1, CS2, CS3, CS10, DW-E23 or LP-4, but introduces CS-20
to the list: "Policy CS20 of
the Core Strategy protects shopping frontages, ensuring that active ground
floor frontages are maintained and that an appropriate mix of uses ensures
the viability and vitality of shopping frontages."
A fuller reading of CS-20 suggests a wider meaning:
" . . .
providing a good range of shopping, food and drink uses, services,
offices, and entertainment and leisure facilities, and high quality public
spaces .
. [and] protect the primary retailing role of
the defined primary shopping areas . Within
the primary shopping areas there will be a presumption against the loss of
premises in an A1 retail use, except where it can be demonstrated that an
alternative use proposed would be complementary to the retailing function
and would enhance the overall vitality of the centre."
This
fuller extract brings out two important points which the Policy Section comment
omits. There are
already seven pubs and (depending on definition) at least fourteen restaurants,
coffee shops and the like spread out along the High Street between Queen Street and the Quay, and
there is no evidence that they cannot satisfy demand. It follows that the proposed Wetherspoons will
draw their customers away from the existing High Street pubs, thereby
severely threatening their existence, and so narrowing the "good range
of food and drink uses" that the policy seeks to provide.
An outlet on the scale proposed would still have
to attract many new customers from outside the town, most of whom would inevitably
come by car (with wider infrastructure implications discussed below).
This failure to grasp the scale of the probable
consequences continues in the Policy Officer's response: "Policy BU-TC2 of the New Forest District
Local Plan First Alteration 2005 identifies areas which are important not
only for shopping but for a variety of other town centre activities. This
policy assists in determining when a proposal might harm the vitality of a
shopping frontage outside the primary shopping centre but within the town
centre. Policy BU-TC2 states that
the change of use of retail premises from A1 to other A class uses will
be permitted where this would not harm the vitality of the town centre as
a whole. The provisions of a mix of uses including public
houses make an important contribution to the vitality of a centre."
This
is not strictly accurate: the words
"to other A classes" are a paraphrase of the full text, which actually
says "to uses within Class A2 or A3 of the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)" - which gives
a narrower meaning, Use category A4, with its higher approval hurdle,
did not exist at the time and so is not mentioned. Furthermore, as suggested above, there are
good reasons to fear that the introduction of a large-scale operation such
as that proposed would actually threaten the vitality of the High Street by
driving some existing establishments out of business
No less serious, though less clear as a matter
of public policy than of public opinion, the very large majority of the representations
entered against the proposal see the chosen location as a clear threat
to the historic sanctity of the Church precinct.
This leads directly to the second point omitted from the Policy Section
comment. By its nature, position and the Christian tradition,
the Church precinct and the adjoining cemetery must by any definition count
as one of the most important public spaces in the town centre and its protection
must rank among the highest priorities of the planning system.
The assertion in the Policy Section comment that "This proposal
therefore complies with Policies CS20 and BU-TC2." unjustified,
and suggests that the writer has yet to comprehend the scale and probable
consequences of what is proposed.
Two
saved policies which are nowhere mentioned are BU-LC1 - Food and drink
uses in built-up areas outside town centres BU-LC2 - Loss of Public Houses
in built-up areas outside town centres.
Although the application site is within the town centre, the scale
of what is proposed is such that its consequences will be felt throughout
and beyond the town. Specifically, BU-LC1 mandates that “Development
of new food and drink outlets, including new build and change of use, will
be permitted, provided that:
a
there is no detrimental effect arising from the development or associated
parking on the character or amenities of neighbouring land uses; and
b
no traffic hazard through on-street parking or servicing will result . .”
and BU-LC2
rules that “Permission will only be given to development proposals
which would result in the loss of a public house where:
a
there is another public house or similar facility located within the neighbourhood
served; or
b
the proposal is for an alternative community or public leisure use; or where
c
the current use is an inappropriate location and causes significant disturbance
to local residents.”
Additional Factors
The foregoing paragraphs have been limited to
matters adumbrated by documents already posted on the planning website. The following paragraphs suggest some additional
factors which call for closer examination, not all of which are specifically
covered by planning policy documents. Some have been raised by consultees embraced
by the planning process
Precedent. There is little specific guidance
outside the saved BU-TC and -LC policies of the superseded Local Plan (which
predate the introduction of the A4 category) to shape decisions on change
of use. Precedent is a poor guide.
Of the 22 Change of Use applications recorded since 2007, 16 were approved,
one was allowed at appeal, two were refused because of a lack of information
on the environmental health impact (which is the reason given for the invalidation
of the current application), two were refused for policy reasons under BU-TC-1
and BU-TC2 respectively and one was withdrawn.
None offers a useful precedent in the current case, nor can their differing
circumstances or outcomes be taken to suggest a presumption in favour of granting
such applications.
Vehicle Traffic. If Wetherspoons
achieve the turnover typical of their other establishments, the scale of traffic
generated and the consequent delivery, refuse removal, vehicle movement and
parking problems of the town centre is likely to be substantially increased. Lymington is already a "destination"
town for Forest visitors generally, for sailors particularly and for Isle
of Wight ferry traffic. The town (and the wider Forest) roads are already
at times choking with road traffic. Public
transport is unlikely to offer any answers to vistors seeking a late night
out. There is no provision for parking
outside the proposed location, and both St Thomas Street and Church Lane are
already widely used during the day as car parks (often in defiance of the
yellow lines) by those attending the church or the medical centre nearby,
or in the evening, during weekends and on market days by other visitors to
shops, market and restaurants. The
nearest public car park, off Powlett Road, is often full, though space may
usually be found in the evenings by those few who are prepared and able to
walk the two hundred yards. Deliveries
to and waste removal from the site, which given the likely scale of business
will be substantially more frequent than for the existing furniture shop,
can only be achieved by large vehicles parking at the busy junction where
St Thomas Street, the High Street and Church Lane meet.
Policy CS24 seeks to minimise reliance on the
private car, but is not included in the list of policies above, other than
by reference to Policy CS10: " .
. ensuring that development
is accessible by both car based and other transport modes whilst ensuring
that reliance upon the private car, and any adverse impacts of traffic and
parking, are minimised (as set out in Policy CS24)". This
reflects the earlier Policy CS1: " . .
not putting an unreasonable burden on existing infrastructure and services
". Highway Highways have contributed a lengthy
comment which asserts that there is no problem beyond a lack of cycle parking
which could not be solved by a Transport Contribution, which suggests either
a failure to understand the scale of what is proposed or a defective acquaintance
with the traffic problems of this crowded town..
Noise. The
Wetherspoons website makes the following claim:
"During the day, our Lloyds No.1 bars can offer a quiet, relaxed
pub, for all to enjoy a drink or meal; at night, the teams up the mood and
tempo. The night-time teams are really
focused on, and enthusiastic about, people having fun and providing a really
vibrant atmosphere. Watch out for
our regular party nights – great fun and often a bit of an eye-opener! At the weekends, many of our Lloyds No.1 bars
have live DJs or live music." principle,
a drinking establishment aiming to draw in visitors from outside the town
and provide them with cheap beer and music until past midnight should be sited
well away from places where such activities are unwelcome. Of all the possible sites, between a quiet
church precinct and a care home must be the least sensible or appropriate. To make matters worse, the electoral register
shows that there are more than 450 residents within a 300 yard radius and
so within earshot of the application site in Church Lane, St Thomas Street,
the High Street and St Thomas Park, many of whom are likely to be elderly. Policy CS2 is specific: "New development will be required to
. .
respect the character, identity, and context of the area’s towns, villages
and countryside . .
[and] to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and sense of
place .
. and shall not cause unacceptable effects by
reason of visual intrusion, overlooking .
. noise, light pollution or other adverse impact
on local character and amenities." Noise has been introduced as a separate planning
consideration by the Environmental Health (Pollution) consultee, whose full
comments are at Annex A below.
Local Distinctiveness. The
Conservation Officer has pointed
out the threat to the Conservation Area of the proposed access alterations
and has recommended refusal. (The
full text is at Annex B below). The
question neither asked nor answered is whether Lymington needs, or can accommodate,
a destination venue of this kind. Wetherspoons
is said to be a well-run organization, and there can be no objection in principle
to such a venue so long as it does not threaten the character, distinctiveness
and way of life of the town. Policy
CS3 is explicit: "Development
proposals must protect and, where possible, enhance sites of recognised importance
for nature and heritage conservation . . New
development proposals should maintain local distinctiveness and where possible
enhance the character of identified features." (The church is self-evidently such a feature).
". . .
The special characteristics of the Plan Area’s natural and built environment
will be protected and enhanced through . . ensuring
that new development protects and enhances local distinctiveness (see Policy
CS2) . . using
the development management process to positively bring about development which
enhances local character and identity . .
[and ] producing Conservation Area appraisals and management plans,
including enhancements such as environmental improvements, traffic management
etc." These policies together argue that the town
centre is probably the least sensible place to site an establishment of the
proposed kind, even if concerns as to its effect on its immediate neighbours
can be alleviated..
Litter. Litter is inevitable but is not
mentioned in the Core Strategy. Refuse
disposal is referred to by the Environmental Health (Pollution) consultee
(Annex A) but the risk of random litter and of means to prevent, collect
and dispose of it are not considered in the documents accompanying this application
Anti-Social Problems Associated with Alcohol. However
well-run the business, cheap alcohol and late opening have a long record nationally
of leading to adverse
impacts on the community.. There can
be no reason to suppose Lymington (which has its own history of such problems)
to be exempt. Particularly relevant
is the objection lodged by Mrs Prevost, recording personal experience of a
Wetherspoon pub in Saffron Walden, a town similar in size and style to Lymington. It is curious that the Police, who have been
consulted, have not offered a view.
Mrs Bennett of NFDC has suggested the imposition
of some conditions to reduce the threat of inappropriate behaviour in and
around the churchyard:
1. Restriction of opening hours to be sensitive
to the area that is residential. Recommend
00:00.
2. Recognition of perception of anti-social behaviour
between cultures eg football on saturday and a wedding next door taking photos.
This may need sound/sightline reducing measures
3. I consider there to be a high risk of urination
in the graveyard and recommend that access to the churchyard area between
the church and the establishment is restricted. This will require secure fencing
with locking gates and lighting improvements with signage that the area is
covered by CCTV.
4. Protection of the sanctity of the churchyard
from acts perceived as anti-social will require restriction of access and
lighting improvements.
5. All lighting and target hardening measures
to have a management plan attached as a condition
These comments well illustrate the threat and
make clear the high price of mitigation, for example by suggesting restriction
of access to the churchyard and the installation of lights and CCTV, which
are unlikely to be acceptable in an historic conservation area.
Conclusion. This application to change the
use of 47-48 St Thomas Street from A1 to A4 is objectionable on many grounds,
the chief of which are its inappropriate location in the Conservation Area
and its probable consequences for the style and distinctiveness of the town. The Lymington Society urges its refusal.
Annex A - Environmental Health (Pollution) Comments
47-48 ST THOMAS
STREET, LYMINGTON
Received Date 13 May 2010
Comments from Environmental
Health (Pollution) in Relation to Noise and Odour:
I refer to the planning
application for 47-48 St Thomas Street, Lymington, for the change of use from A1 (shop)
to A4 (drinking establishment) use.
Noise
There are several residential
properties in the vicinity that would most likely be affected by the use of the
premises by noise generated both externally and internally. It should be
noted that there is a residential property located at first floor above the retail premises
that adjoins the proposed development on the left side and the two may have to
be structurally isolated from each other to prevent noise transmitting through the
party walls i.e. the proposed development may have to design a box within a box
should the need arise. The location of the beer store is indicated and
it is most probably that condenser units will be required to chill the beer etc. ; however
there are no condenser units shown on the plans. The submitted plans show
a considerable sized kitchen area; however, there is no information submitted that
shows the layout of the ventilation system and associated noise from the
ducting, discharge stack, fans etc.
To enable me to comment
further, a noise impact assessment should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
that must include the following:
1. Direct and structure borne noise emanating from the
proposed use of
the building to include
the impact on the structurally attached shop and residential dwelling.
2. Impact on the nearby dwellings as a result of the
use of the area to the rear as a beer garden
3. Impact on nearby dwellings as a result of any mechanical
equipment to include ventilation
systems, condensers and air
conditioning systems.
4. Impact on nearby dwellings as a result of the open
front to include the .sliding doors, which
I assume are
intended to be open
for ventilation during the summer months.
5. Impact as a result of any musical entertainment to
be provided as part
of the change of
use. A planning condition may possibly be included that precludes any musical entertainment at
the proposed
development. The criterion to aim for with regards to external noise
is a Rating Level of at least
10dB below the Background
Level (LA90) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises in accordance
with BS4142:1997. The criterion to aim for with regards to internally
generated noise is to ensure that the proposed development is acoustically insulated to
ensure that the noise, as measured, within
the adjoining residential property would not exceed NR25 (1sec); however this level is subject
to change to ensure inaudibility.
In addition to the above,
it is highly unlikely that any mitigation will be able to deal with the general hubbub created by the normal use of
the proposed beer garden to prevent loss of amenity
to nearby residential properties and disturbance to the church premises. Odours I have attached DEFRA Guidance
on the Control of Odour and Noise from
Commercial Kitchen
Exhaust Systems (Jan 2005) for your information. As mentioned above, the
submitted plans show a substantial kitchen area and therefore it is highly probably that mechanical ventilation
will be required. Any kitchen ventilation installed on the premises is
likely to cause serious loss of amenity to nearby odour
sensitive premises. To control odours, any ventilation system will require a. adequate dispersion and b. odour
control. To aid dispersion, the kitchen ventilation system will
require a discharge stack to terminate at least 1m higher
than the ridge height of any building within 20m of the proposed development. If the stack is to be lower due
to planning constraints, then a higher level of odour
control would be required. With regards to odour control, an odour risk assessment
shown at Annex C of the attached DEFRA Guidance
must be undertaken and the ventilation system
designed as necessary. With regards to the above,
the following information should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to enable further comments to
be made:
6. Annex B of the above
DEFRA guidance– ‘Information required to support a planning application for a commercial kitchen’.
Refuse
There are no details shown
on the submitted plans for the storage of refuse.
7. To enable further comments,
detailed information must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing adequate storage for refuse. With regards to the above,
there is insufficient information to allow the assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development and
as a result I have no option but object to this proposed
development and therefore recommend refusal. I am of the opinion that
the above matters will be difficult to resolve in such a way that prevents the loss of amenity to nearby residential
properties; however, I would be happy to discuss this
matter further with the applicant and/or agent and consider any proposals they have to resolve the above
concerns.
Verity Potter
Environmental Health Officer
Environmental Protection
Annex
B - Conservation Area Comments
Location 47-48 ST
THOMAS STREET, LYMINGTON
Received Date 03 June 2010
The application suggests
limited alteration of the building itself, but of significance is the alteration of the
shop window, its removal and replacement with bi-folding doors to allow complete
opening up of the shop front to the street. This building has a distinctive, 1950s shop
front which has been identified as being of architectural significance in the Lymington
Conservation Area Appraisal. Alteration of this shop front would inevitably result
in the loss of its architectural significance and diminish its contribution to the
character and appearance3 of the Lymington Conservation Area. Further, inevitable as a result of the proposed use but
unidentified in this application alterations
that would impact on the character and appearance of the building and hence its contribution
to the character and appearance of the conservation area and potentially
to the setting of the adjacent grade ll* listed St Thomas Church.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.
The proposed alterations
to the shop window will adversely impact on the architectural character of this significant unlisted
building and on the contribution that it currently makes to the character and appearance
of the Lymington Conservation Area
and would therefore be contrary to policy CS3 of the New Forest District Core Strategy
and policy HE 7.5 of PPS5. Alterations that would be
an inevitable consequence of the proposed use would
impact adversely on the
architecture of the existing building to the extent that this would also impact adversely
on the setting of the adjacent grade ll* listed building as well as the Lymington
Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to policy CS2 of the New Forest
Core Strategy as well as policies HE7.5 and HE10.1 of PPS5.
Gill Butter-Conservation
Architect.
