2a
The Committee received details of the application for the demolition of the Two Bears Hotel and its replacement with an A1 (Bulky Goods) unit with associated works, including a totem pole sign at the front of the site.
The Planning Group Manager reported that 14 letters of objection had been received expressing concern with regard to increased traffic, delivery times, the need for another shop unit, method piling at that the existing building or at least the frontage should be retained. An additional letter had also been received in relation to the loss of parking and concern over vehicular movements. It was noted that the Highways Authority had not objected to the proposal, subject to conditions, including restricting deliveries to 7.5 tonnes rigid goods vehicles and a loading restriction being put in place along the Mill Road frontage between Pasteur Road and High Mill Road. The Environment Agency also had no objections, subject to conditions that the floor levels be raised. The Conservation Officer had requested that the front range and facade be retained as they were regarded as a heritage asset. The Planning Group Manager reported that although the building had been put forward for "local listing" in the emerging Local Plan, this did not afford it any protection and it could still be demolished. He added that the applicant considered that it would not be viable to retain the facade. The Environmental Health Officer had requested that conditions be imposed regarding hours of work and details of any external lighting and ventilation/air conditions systems be submitted for approval. The Committee was informed that a retail sequential test had taken place but in reality the size of the store was below normal threshold requirements. A flooding sequential test had also been carried out, however, the risk was mitigated due to the use class of the building changing from a hotel to retail. It was added that the proposal would lead to 15 full time jobs, 12 in store and 3 on deliveries.
The Planning Group Manager concluded that the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions restricting the type of goods to be sold, Highways Authority conditions, which included hours of use, working hours and method of piling (if required) as well as standard application conditions.
Members were informed that there were 26 parking spaces available on site and lorries would access the site from Pasteur Road/Mill Road into the site. It was added that a condition could also be imposed to restrict the use to A1 which meant that any proposed change would require a new planning application. Concern was expressed that the name of the applicant had not been disclosed, however, the Group Manager pointed out that Members needed to consider the application on its merits irrespective of who the applicant was.
The applicant's agent reported that the costs of refurbishing the existing building and/or retaining the facade were prohibitive. He added that the site was defined as edge of town centre and the existing building had been granted permission for various different uses, none of which had proven viable. He also informed Members that he did not know who the end user was. Following a query, the agent indicated that other locations had been considered, including the former Bennetts Store but it was too small and very expensive to bring up to the standard they want.
A local resident indicated that he supported the preservation of local landmark buildings and felt that this site did not show any signs of structural defects so should be saved as the loss of this prominent Edwardian building would be a loss to the local area. With regard to the proposed design, he suggested that it was bland and mediocre, lacking in local character. He requested that the existing benches remain. He clarified that he was not opposed to the proposal for retail use but was against the loss of the facade.
Councillor Linden, Ward Councillor, sympathised with the objectors on the grounds that this was a locally important building that should be preserved, especially bearing in mind its position as an iconic gateway to the town. She stated that she had received an email from a resident asking for the two bears on the top of the building to be rescued and relocated. She pointed out that other local buildings of historic interest had been rescued over the years and suggested that this could have become a Conservation Area. She expressed disappointment at the mediocre design and that no details were available regarding the end user. Notwithstanding this, she endorsed the proposed conditions if Members were minded to approve the application.
Councillor Castle, Ward Councillor, pointed out that local residents had objected to other planning applications in the past eg a marquee to the rear which, if approved, might have saved the hotel. He added that the Committee was now faced with a derelict building in a prominent position that needed to be developed. He clarified that the end user of the site was not a Planning Committee consideration.
The Committee considered the application and the point was made that this was an important gateway into the town which needed to be made attractive and whilst there was some sympathy in retaining the facade, it was felt that it was not practical to retain it bearing in mind the costs.
RESOLVED:
That Application No. 06/13/05/38/F be approved, subject to a condition restricting the type of goods to be sold, Highways Authority conditions, hours of use, working hours and method of piling (if required) as well as standard application conditions, in order to comply with Policies TCM9 and EMP10 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan and in line with the requirements of the NPPF and emerging Core Strategy Policy CS7.