Agenda item

22 - 25 Lower Marsh (Bishops) 16/06417/FUL

Officer’s recommendation:


Resolve to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement.



Case no. 16/06417/FUL (agenda item three, page 9 of the agenda, page one of the first addendum and page one of the second addendum)


The agent and architect for the application introduced the application, stating that:

·         The application would provide welcome investment and redevelopment of a neglected block, and would be a positive addition to the local area.

·         The applicant would work with the Council’s officers to ensure that the proposal would be of a high standard and in keeping with the character of the local area.

·         The distinct character of Lower Marsh had inspired the design of the application. 

·         The scheme was designed to be perceived as individual buildings incorporated into the area.

·         27 Lower Marsh had a mansard roof which was able to conceal two floors, which had inspired the design of the mansard roof of the scheme.


In response to questions from Members, officers and the applicant’s representatives explained that:

·         One of the characteristics of Lower Marsh was the lack of uniformity in the built forms and officers did not want to introduce excessive formalisation or uniformity.

·         The current corner building (22 Lower Marsh) was from the 1950s, was different to other nearby buildings and was not attractive.  Design and Conservation officers were of the opinion that a brick building with a single tier mansard was appropriate.

·         While demolition would not normally be supported, the existing building was not in a good level of repair and there were few original features to preserve.  Effort would be made to remove rendering to reveal the original brickwork to retain the historic character.

·         The concealed double mansard at 27 Lower Marsh was effective and was similar in style to the proposed balustrade and mansard.

·         There would be hotel rooms behind the balustrade and a solid parapet would block light from entering those rooms.

·         The application complied with Policy PN1 regarding the level of A1 use.

·         All applications had to be assessed on their own merits.  The proposal met policy requirements.

·         Although there were other examples of ghost signage in Lower Marsh, the signage on this site was not of particularly high value.  On other sites in the borough ghost signs had been created on new builds and treated to appear aged.

·         The existing façades that were to be retained were rendered, although revealing the original brickwork was preferred.

·         The new building at 22 Lower Marsh and the rear elevations would be constructed of brick.

·         Ten per cent of hotel rooms would be acceptable for visitors with disabilities, as required by policy.

·         The applicant would be required in the s106 agreement to allocate £10,000 to provide one disable parking space.

·         Condition 10 required details of materials before construction.  Extraction from the commercial units would be through an internal riser and ducting system, which would provide a more aesthetic appearance.  There would be no cooking in the hotel.

·         The applicant had been in contact with and was due to meet the We Are Waterloo BID to secure training and local employment after construction.  The s106 heads of terms could be amended to include employment after the construction period.


The committee considered points raised by the applicant’s representatives and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observation:

·         It was important to try to retain the smaller commercial units on Lower Marsh.

·         The meetings with the BID were a positive and development which Members hoped would be successful in bringing local employment in the area.

·         Members hoped that the hotel would be upmarket to prevent the area from becoming an area dominated by the night-time economy.

·         Creating a different parapet that would still allow views from the hotel rooms would be positive.

·         The proposed amendments to the s106 agreement regarding employment and skills provision were of great importance.


It was MOVED by Councillor Clark, SECONDED by Councillor Winifred and


RESOLVED unanimously


To grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement.



Supporting documents: