 |
The
Lymington Society
|
 |
||||
47 & 48 St Thomas Street; change of use to public
house (Use Class A4) with wildlife & pub gardens; shop front alterations;
fenestration alterations to include rear doors & louvre; kitchen extraction;
jumbrella. OBJECTION
The
LPA has already determined that the proposed change of use of the application
premises is incompatible with the existing use of adjacent premises. Specifically,
the Development Control Committee refused the previous application because
the location of the site was in conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS5,
which says: “The proposal would…conflict with an objective
of the Core Strategy to provide for a high quality, safe and attractive
living environment for communities in a way that respects and safeguards
the special qualities, character and local distinctiveness of the area,
and in particular, with the requirements of policy CS5 'Safe and healthy
communities' which requires that particular attention be given to creating
places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict,
and that environments are created in which people feel safe.”
The
Developer’s planning statement supporting the current application seeks
to challenge this. It says “Within historic town centres,
the juxtaposition of churches, residential accommodation and public houses
is far from unusual. A number of pubs operated by [the applicant] are in similar
locations, next to - or even combined with - churches”.
It says further that the “Proposed alterations
to the external fabric and appearance of the building [will have] no adverse impact on the character and appearance
of the conservation area or on the setting of adjoining listed buildings.
The proposed change of use will not detract significantly from either the
character or appearance of the area or the amenities which local residents
and occupiers / users of other properties nearby may reasonably expect to
enjoy.”..
However, we believe that the
developer’s view is inaccurate and that the proposed change of use
would have an adverse impact, in particular on the parish church and its
precinct. The churchyard is a breathing space in the town centre, a place
of repose and tranquillity, sometimes a place of solace and consolation.
The Lymington Conservation Area
Appraisal recognises the particular status and importance of the parish
church and churchyard to the town centre. The Local Distinctiveness SPD
says that “The churchyard at St Thomas is a very important open space
in the town centre. Between High Street, the “Tins”, the town
Hall and Avenue Road, it provides both green amenity and various important
links that allow visitors to enter the town centre on foot. Any development
that threatens the sense of tranquillity or the character of this spiritual
amenity should be avoided”.
.
The current
proposal does threaten this sense
of tranquillity and the character of this spiritual amenity. When consulted
about the previous application, the
Community Safety Officer suggested that measures would be required to combat the anticipated increased levels of anti-social behaviour;
specifically that it would be necessary to “restrict access to the churchyard
through the provision of lockable gates, lighting and CCTV”.
The need for measures
such as these would interfere with the existing use of the churchyard and
would diminish its abiding presence in the town centre, which brings positive
benefits to the health and stability of the community as a whole.
The anticipated
increase in anti-social behaviour is not an issue that can be satisfactorily
addressed through Licensing Conditions nor can the behaviour of the people
who come and go from a pub be controlled by even the most professional of
pub managers once they are no longer on the premises.
In
reaching its decision, The Development Control Committee also recorded detailed
concerns that
“On
the basis of the limited details submitted…the Council is unable to
be satisfied that the changes would not have a detrimental impact on interests
of acknowledged importance. In particular, the likely requirement for a
mechanical kitchen extraction system and chiller condensing units and arrangements
for the removal of rubbish, the Council considers that these features would
lessen the value of the building as a key unlisted building and would adversely
impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting
of adjoining listed buildings and on the residential amenities of local
residents by reason of noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore
be contrary to policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy…and [saved] policies DW-E23
and BU-TC4…and to the objectives of PPS5 - Planning for the
Historic Environment.”
The
Developer tries to address the Council’s concerns in the planning statement
supporting the current application. It says “An acoustic survey has been undertaken to ensure that
acceptable noise levels are not exceeded”. However, the acoustic survey carried out on its behalf by Spectrum,
a noise specialist, is mainly limited to the generation and transmission
of noise from the interior of the building and takes little or no account of the comings
and goings from the proposed premises.
For the reasons described above, the amenities enjoyed by local residents
are more likely to be significantly compromised by noise and disturbance
created outside the building.
The
Developer’s planning statement says “At the time the residential care home for elderly people
was first established, there was a pub opposite at 45 St Thomas Street (“The
Lymington Tavern”). Clearly, that relationship was not considered to
be a problem at the time of granting permission for the care home use.”
However, the pub described was small and uninviting,
with customer numbers rarely entering double figures, which was one reason
why it failed. To suggest a comparison
is absurd, and also shows why scale is so important a factor in the analysis
of this application.
It says “[the
applicant's] operating policy [explains] management measures that
are taken to minimise any disturbance to people living nearby and using
other neighbouring premises.” However, experience proves otherwise. Drinkers
are drawn to cheap alcohol as moths to a flame. It is inevitable that incidents
will occur, whatever management policy may be. Lymington has its own history
of such incidents, which suggests that it is not immune. And management has no control over events which
occur outside the premises, such as vomiting, urination, loud conversations,
banging car doors, noisy engines and traffic congestion. In response to the previous application,
the Police said that "the
applicant's Design and Access Statement does not respond to advice in paragraph
87 of DCLG Circular 01/2006 (Guidance on changes to the Development Control
System) that such statements should demonstrate how crime prevention measures
have been considered in the design proposal" and concluded that
they were "unable to support" the application.
It says “The objective of [the Core Strategy] is fully supported and information provided
with this re-submitted application seeks to demonstrate that the proposed
change of use is consistent with the associated planning policy.” The LPA has already decided that it is
not, so long as the premises are between the Church and a care home.
Behind
this application, presented as a simple change of use to an existing building,
is concealed a project of a scale which is exceptional and whose potential
consequences for the town need to be properly understood.
Figures
available from its published 2010/11 accounts show that the applicant's
775 national pubs employ an average 27 staff (or 15 “full-time equivalents”)
to generate annual sales of £1.29 million.
The application here considered includes a promise to create 50 new
jobs, some of them part-time (the pro-rata “full-time equivalent”
number is 28) which suggests an annual sales target of around £2.3 million
or £6,300 every day of the year, half of which, by the applicant's own admission,
would be sales of alcohol This sales
projection is consistent with the large floor area of the premises (including
the proposed “beer garden”) which is about the same as that of
the town's Tesco supermarket and substantially exceeds the area of any other
drinking or food establishment in the town.
The
consequences of adding at a single stroke such a massive increase in the
supply of food and drink to a High Street which is already adequately supplied
by 21 hotels, pubs, restaurants and coffee houses spread along its length
are such that their impact would change the whole balance of the town centre
and so alter the factors by which the merits of the application should be
judged.
The
stated policy of the applicant is to set prices below those of competitors,
so it must be assumed that local custom would be drawn to the new establishment
at the expense of existing outlets. Some
of them would fail and so reduce the choice available, and alter the balance
and vitality of the High Street as well as destroying existing livelihoods
and jobs. But the implied sales
targets would also suggest a need for a substantial increase in visitors
from outside the town, most of whom would be likely to come by car, with
consequences for congestion and parking.
Whatever the eventual balance, there would be a considerable increase
in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the premises,
adding weight to the first reason the LPA gave for refusal of application
95473. The noise and hubbub inseparable from such
traffic, which would continue for up to 18 hours a day, and reaching its
peak in the “quiet” evening hours, would be external to the premises
and so beyond the control of the applicant.