Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Support

Representation ID: 22779

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Whitbread PLC

Agent: Savills

(Please refer to attached document for full representation/greater clarity. Where the attachment contains ‘struck through’ text, wording has been omitted, it is not possible to format the text in the same way here.)

Overall, we welcome and support site allocation Policy CC4b in principle, subject to the following changes being made;
• In terms of Bullet Point 1 within the policy, please amended the wording as follows:
‘Development to be approached comprehensively to achieve effective integration of the historic buildings in the western part of the site into the overall development’

The reason for this change to the wording is due to the fact that the historic buildings are located on the western side of the site.

• With regard to Bullet Point 2, we support the land uses mentioned in the allocation, save for the following changes:
The inclusion of Class C2 residential care homes as an additional use and the removal of educational facilities as this reflects the nature of the uses that are more likely to come forward.
The wording should therefore be amended as follows:
‘Other uses may be provided as part of a balanced mix including hotel development (replacing or supplementing the existing hotel provision on site), residential care homes home student accommodation, high quality office space, managed workspace and live-work units, food/drink, small scale retail and uses supporting the evening and night-time economy. Night-time economy uses should not dominate the development and should be located to protect the amenity of adjoining residential and commercial occupiers’

• In respect of Bullet Point 5, we would like to clarify that Baltic House is not within the clients ownership, however any redevelopment scheme would not prejudice this building coming forward for development conversion or change of use.

• Bullet Point 8 relates to the retention and provision of public access to the currently private garden at the rear of Nelson Hotel. We request that this bullet point should be removed. The reason for this, is that as part of any redevelopment scheme, this open space will be re-provided, and therefore the word ‘retention’ does not work in this regard. Furthermore, any future open space would not be solely associated as a private garden to the Nelson Hotel. Finally, in respect of the provision of future open space, we consider that Bullet Point 7 covers this requirement.

• We request that an additional Bullet Point (12) should be added to Policy CC4b, to provide for the development of landmark buildings on the site:
Given the size and location of the site, it is considered that the site has potential to accommodate landmark buildings and to deliver a comprehensive high quality mixed use new community.