Reassessment of Application 96974

In the comment and correspondence which has followed the above application, the view has been heard that it is a re-submission of its forerunner 95473 and that in assessing it the LPA is obliged to confine itself to the reasons for refusing the earlier application.  The purpose of this comment is to challenge that view.

The second reason for refusing the first application, 95473, was:

2. On the basis of the limited details submitted regarding the visual impact and impact through noise and disturbance caused by physical changes which would be required  .  .  the Council is unable to be satisfied that the changes would not have a detrimental impact on interests of acknowledged importance.

These words make clear that what was not known could not be assessed.   The following paragraphs contrast the information supplied by the two application forms and design statements.   The second application (96974) contains much factual information which the first lacked, and so allows for the first time an assessment of the scale and consequences of what is proposed.

Application Forms.   Comparison of the application forms shows that the only difference is in the proposed hours of opening:

Design Statements.    The D & A Statement accompanying application 95473 is just 287 words long.   The 98 words describing the proposal were:

AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT  There will be minor revision to the internal layout and the installation of a disabled platform hoist, goods hoist and disabled WC. A new kitchen, storage areas, and new bar will be installed.   New customer toilets will be created on the first floor.

LAYOUT  As described above, minor changes are planned to the internal layout only.

SCALE  No changes are planned which will affect the scale of the building overall.

LANDSCAPING  The existing neglected and overgrown rear walled garden area will be cleared and used as a new beer garden associated with the public house.

The Planning Statement accompanying the current application is by contrast 38 pages long and sets out specifically to provide additional information:

.  .  There is an opportunity to resolve locally the issues which led to the initial refusal, primarily by submitting further information and technical documents enabling a fully informed and balanced judgement to be made.

It includes the following:

The premises will create up to 50 new jobs. It is estimated that of these about 15 will be full time and 35 part time.   This statement contradicts the “proposed employees” question in the application form, and allows the very substantial scale of the proposal to be seen for the first time.

The proposal is to provide food and drink (both alcoholic and non-alcoholic) to customers throughout the day. The layout allows for 26 tables and 114 seats plus standing customers. Only the ground floor and rear terrace are to be used for eating and drinking, with the toilets and office accommodation on the first floor. A further 12 tables and 48 seats are proposed for the rear terrace. Furniture will remain in situ at all times and will not be removed to allow greater vertical drinking occupancy at peak times.   This new information gives a further measure of the scale of the proposed operation.   The 114 seats are all indoors;  another 48 are shown at tables on the proposed rear terrace, making 162 in all, plus “vertical drinking occupancy” space which in the applicants’ own verbal estimate could see up to 200 customers on the premises at one time.

J D Wetherspoon outlets are not just “pubs” in the conventional sense; they offer a wide range of food and non-alcoholic beverages, food is available from opening until 22:00 every day.   Because of its likely customer base and location, we would anticipate that food sales at the premises will comprise 45% to 50% of total sales by value.  .  .  The proposed opening hours are between the hours of 07:00 for breakfast with alcohol sales from 09:00, closing at 23:30 Sundays to Thursdays, and 00:30 Fridays and Saturdays.   Hours for the sale of alcohol   .  .  would normally commence at 09:00 and cease 30 minutes before the close of the premises to allow a gradual dispersal of any remaining customers.  The applicant is at pains to emphasise the proportion of non-alcohol sales.   But these sit uncomfortably against the  claim in both application forms that 100% of the trading space will be assigned to the A4 purpose of a drinking establishment, and must be seen in the context of the proposed opening hours and the very substantial turnover (conservatively estimated at more than £2 million annually) implied by the number of promised jobs.   Furthermore, for the last 1½ or 2½ hours of every day food will not be available.

There will be no on-site parking provision for cars or other motor vehicles.   Customers and staff travelling by car will be expected to use the town centre’s public car parks or park on street, where permitted.  .  .  The situation remains as at present, with these retail premises being serviced from the street.   This is normal in Lymington and most town centres.  There has been no objection from the highway authority and there is no reason to assume that there will be any abnormal risks created by the proposed change of use.  .  .  All deliveries will take place from St Thomas St, as they do now to the existing retail premises.  .  .  As with deliveries, all collections of refuse and material for recycling will be carried out from from St Thomas Street  .  .  .   These extracts conflict oddly with the information supplied in both applications in answer to the question “Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste?”   Judged on the scale set by the number of jobs to be created, there is, as has been pointed out in many of the 883 objections so far lodged against the application, good reason for supposing that the proposed change of use will pose “abnormal risks” as a consequence of increased road traffic.   The dismissal of such risk by the Highway Authority appears complacent, while the same authority’s claim that “traffic is not a planning matter” is contradicted by PPG 13, on which an Inspector relied in February 2011 as the sole ground for dismissing an appeal by the same applicant against refusal of a similar change of use application in Beverley.

An acoustic survey has been undertaken  .  .  This shows that neighbouring residents (including those in the care home opposite) and users of other property nearby should not experience any undue noise from plant and equipment used on the premises or from the use of the designated terrace area by customers.   While this new information is welcome, it has been pointed out by objectors that it is open to challenge on several grounds, particularly as it does not concern itself with noise created off the premises by movement of people and motor vehicles.

Conclusion.   Application 96974 can not be regarded as a resubmission of the refused 95473 which, as recorded in the reasons for its refusal, was notably deficient in essential information.   The new application makes possible for the first time an understanding of the scale and scope of what is proposed, and assessment of it must examine every relevant factor, many of which are revealed by its supporting documents for the first time.

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 Lymington Society strongly urges you to reject this application. We welcomed the Development Control Committee’s decision to refuse the previous application 95473 in September 2010 and we consider that the additional information in the current application offers little new evidence.

 The new application can’t change the finding that the proposed change of use is incompatible with existing uses at adjacent sites. If implemented, the proposal would carry serious risks for the balance and vitality of the High Street. The proposal is therefore incompatible with Policies CS5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and saved policies DW-E23 and BU-TC4 of the superseded Local Plan and with the objectives and policies of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.

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 andtakes 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.

It says that “the church of St Thomas is itself currently undergoing major change and investment…[the applicant] wishes the Church every success in achieving its aim of attracting many more visitors to events in the building…“. However, the church is engaged in a different business and does not sell alcohol so the intended analogy is irrelevant…

It says that “All deliveries will take place from St Thomas St, as they do now to the existing retail premises. A service door to be inserted at the west end of the “shop front” will provide access to a service corridor running through to the back of the building and the garden…all collections of refuse and material for recycling will be carried out from St Thomas Street, as they do now. ”   Currently, however, the retail premises at 47 & 48 St Thomas Street are open for up to 8 hours a day on six days a week and trading is light. The change of use proposed would see the premises open up to 17½ hours a day, seven days a week, with a turnover incomparably greater. There is no parking space outside the shop other than the street, which is a congested junction. It is unjustifiably optimistic to suppose that deliveries and refuse collection will take place “as they do now”.

Finally, the Developer’s planning statement says “The premises will create up to 50 new jobs. It is estimated that of these about 15 will be full time and 35 part time…”

 However, such claims should be balanced by the probability that jobs will be destroyed elsewhere in the High Street.   It is very unlikely that the town could absorb the extra supply created by such jobs without attracting large numbers of visitors from elsewhere.

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.

Conclusion   The additional information included in the current application includes no new evidence to alter the Development Control Committee’s decision of September 2010.   The proposal if implemented carries serious risks for the balance and vitality of the High Street and the site remains inappropriate for its proposed change of use, being incompatible with Policies CS5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and saved policies DW-E23 and BU-TC4 of the superseded Local Plan and with the objectives and policies of PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment.