Resolved that application 20211466 be APPROVED but with delegated authority to Service Manager (Planning) in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair and in conjunction with the applicant. 

The Committee considered 20211466 in relation to TJ's 15 Milton Road Gravesend Kent. Theapplication wasfor the demolition of the existing 2 storey outrigger and erection of a replacement two storey outrigger linked to a first floor extension to the existing function room including the change of use of the new first floor accommodation to 6no.en-suite letting rooms ancillary to the existing public house including the relocation of the existing toilets and provision of disabled toilet facilities.  

The Senior Planning Officer introduced application 20211466 to the Committee and highlighted key points from the report.

• The site is located on the outskirts of the town centre within the Harmer Street Conservation Area. 
• There is a two storey outrigger to the rear and a single storey detached building in the garden.
• As there is evidence that this property, with an outrigger to the rear, was shown on a historic map from 1845 this is now identified as a non-designated heritage asset and is described as being a building of townscape merit in the conservation area appraisal.  The outrigger as a whole makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and is a rare survivor.
• Plans showed the demolition of the existing outrigger and the replacement with a 2 storey rear extension which would double the length of the existing one.
• The application had been refused before in 2021 and the reasons for refusal were the loss of the historic outrigger with no justification, the scale of the proposal being out of proportion with the neighbouring extensions and the impact on the adjacent listed building and conservation area.
• No objections were raised to the ancillary use of letting rooms.
• The revised application is more or less the same scheme however a structural report has now been submitted. This report detailed repairs that needed to be made but does not justify the demolition of this rare surviving outrigger.
• A subsequent supporting statement detailed that it is not financially viable to retain the outrigger but does not provide evidence through a detail structural survey or viability assessment.
• The proposed development would assist to expand the existing business and derive both social and economic benefits, but they are not outweighed by the significant harm of this proposal.

In response to Members questions on the clarification of the application, the Senior Planning Officer explained that:

• This application is a non-designated heritage asset.
• Some repairs or strengthening could happen to the outrigger rather than demolition.
• The Chair asked when the structural report was received from the applicant. The Senior Planning Officer said the day before the agenda was to be published.
• Following a question about “what is an outrigger” the Senior Planning Officer told the Committee an outrigger is an extension at the rear of the property. This outrigger would not have been built with the original building and was built in the 1800’s.

The Committee heard the views of a public speaker in favour of the application. Following the address by the public speaker, Members had their questions answered:  

• Following a question from the Chair regarding the refusal of the previous planning permission, had there been any engagement with Officers and what action did the agent and applicant take to bring this new application forward. The agent explained that it was not considered a detrimental scheme to the street view and strongly believed this application would not cause any concern to the conservation area.
• A new disabled toilet had been included in the new application.

The Committee heard the views of a public speaker in favour of the application. Following the address by the public speaker, Members had their questions answered:  

• TJ’s is a community asset with enhanced facilities and expectations that are suited to a variety of people. It is centrally located.

The Committee heard the views of a public speaker in favour of the application. Following the address by the public speaker, Members had their questions answered:  

• The Senior Planning Officer explained the new proposal would be double the length of the current building and would be visible when walking down East Crescent.
• The proposed development would be 20m deep whereas the existing outrigger is currently 10m deep.

The Committee heard from Cllr Lee Croxton, a Ward Councillor for Riverside Ward. The following points were raised during discussion on this application:

• Cllr Croxton explained he was speaking on behalf of all three Ward Councillors and that they all supported this application and are doing anything they can to support this application and support our heritage.
• If the outrigger was demolished and rebuilt, it would not been seen from the landscape or road.
• There have been a number of public houses within the area that have sadly closed, and this public house remains a historic commercial enterprise. This application will provide a long term commercial future for the public house otherwise it could go out of business and become a derelict site. This particular area used to be the hub of the town but the area has now moved, commercially, in a different direction. 
• This application does include improved facilities such as new disabled toilets. 
• This particular historic building does have a future in the town.

The Committee heard from County Councillor Jordan Meade also a Ward Councillor for Woodlands Ward. The following points were raised during discussion on this application:

• This property is of significant historic and cultural importance to the town and will be celebrating 200 years next year.  
• To reject this application would be a complete travesty on heritage grounds as demolishing the outrigger would not been seen from street level.  Outriggers are simply extensions to buildings. 
• The addition of installing a disabled toilet is beneficial to this application and the town.
• Cllr Meade complimented the architects on the application and preserving the heritage of Gravesham and making it something Gravesham could be proud of and making a positive contribution and appearance to the conservation area.

The Committee heard from Cllr Anthony Pritchard, a Ward Councillor for Woodlands Ward:

The following points were raised during discussion on this application:

• The applicants still want to maintain this property as a public house. The appearance of the front will not change and very few people will actually see the area where the outrigger would have been.
• If this application is not granted then there is every chance that the business will close, be abandoned and probably fall down and then the heritage will be completely lost. 

The Senior Planning Officer fielded questions from Members and the following discussions were had:

• The Senior Planning Officer explained there was no lift in the plans so the 6 en-suite letting rooms would not be wheelchair accessible and the agent confirmed that the application did not include accessibility for disabled people to the rooms.
• The Chair asked as it is deemed as a non-designated heritage asset was a detailed structural survey and viability assessment report submitted. The Service Manager (Planning) confirmed that the agent spoke to the case officer before coming to the Committee but they were not willing to delay the application to wait for these reports.
• The Chair summarised the application; it is a non-designated heritage asset that seeks to address the Corporate Plan and become a vibrant business in the town centre and community. There is a benefit of regenerating that area and retaining public houses. TJ’s has continued trading and just wishes to expand the business.  The Officer recommendation is clear, but each Member is entitled to reach their own decision. With the increase in residential properties in the area this application would provide letting rooms for people, entertainment facilities and could increase tourism.  Good quality affordable places for people to stay are required.    
• The Chair asked the Service Manager (Planning) whether it would be advisable if they could defer this application and wait for the structural survey and viability report. The Service Manager (Planning) explained that Members should make a decision on the application before them now, as no-one will know what the structural survey will say and if deferred the application could be completely different from the one being decided tonight.
• The Chair listened very carefully to the community, the registered speakers, Ward Councillors, Borough Councillors and a County Councillor and this application would create a future for the town, where people would be proud to live, work and entertain. The new facilities for people with disabilities would be a benefit. Although the outrigger will be 10m larger on balance the Chair expressed that on this particular occasion and location the application should be approved but with conditions. This was seconded by Cllr Francis.
• A Member of the Committee commented that the main building would need to be preserved but with the amount of people supporting this application, on balance, the benefits of regenerating this location and the sustainability of businesses in that particular part of town they would approve this application.
• Cllr Mulheran expressed her concern that decisions were being made without the structural survey and viability report. Buildings could be being demolished which was part of the heritage of the area. There are a lot of important building that cannot be seen from the road, would this mean more could be demolished.
• The Vice Chair explained this property was of great importance and although torn about this property being in a conservation area and the outrigger being demolished agreed with the Chair to approve this application but delegate authority to Officers and the Chair to agree conditions with the applicant.

Resolved that application 20211466 be APPROVED but with delegated authority to the Service Manager (Planning) in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair in conjunction with the applicant.

Approved with delegated authority to the Chair, Vice Chair and Service Manager (Planning) to agree planning conditions – unanimous.     

The Chair thanked the registered speakers, Ward Councillors, Councillors, County Councillor and the Officers for the detailed report.

Note:   (a) Guneet Kaur (Agent – in favour) addressed the Committee

            (b) Lyn Byers (in favour) addressed the Committee

(c) JonJo O’Connell (in favour) addressed the Committee

(d) Ward Councillor Lee Croxton spoke with the leave of the Chair

(e) Councillor Tony Pritchard spoke with the leave of the Chair

(f) County Councillor Jordan Meade spoke with the leave of the Chair.