Greenwich Council

Agenda item.

The Lord Hood, 300 Creek Road, London, SE10 9SW

Planning Permission is sought for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a part 4 / part 5-storey building, plus basement accommodating a replacement public house (A4 Use Class) on the ground floor and basement level, and 8 dwellings on the upper floors (2 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed). 

Decision:

That full planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a part 4 / part 5-storey building, plus basement accommodating a replacement public house (A4 Use Class) on the ground floor and basement level, and 8 dwellings on the upper floors (2 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed) subject to:

 

(i)              The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement  (obligations set out in section 24 of the main report); and

(ii)             Conditions set out in Section 4.2 of the main report.

 

That it be agreed that the reason for condition 19 be strengthened to include policy EA(b) of the Council’s Core Strategy, in order to protect the ground floor and basement use as a public house.

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Manager gave an illustrated presentation advising that the building was adjacent to the Up the Creek Comedy Club, which was a listed building.  That the site was a last century Public House, which had been vacated since January 2016 and was not listed or part of the World Heritage or Conservation Area.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Area Manager advised that the rear beer garden would have a glazed roof to mitigate noise to existing and proposed properties.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from four speakers, including representatives from the Greenwich Conservation Group and CAMRA, who all spoke individually in objection to the application. 

 

Speakers felt that the proposed development was higher than the existing building and closer adjacent building, giving a sense of expansion.  Further, that there had been previous agreement of a shared open area to Bardsley Lane which now appeared as an enclosed beer garden.  However, one of the speakers welcomed the inclusion of a patio area.

 

A speaker felt that that the Heritage Statement was not an independent piece of work, as the company which carried it out was appointed by the developers.  It was felt that the images presented were misleading as they showed the Lord Hood covered in scaffolding without stating that this was due to the building being redecorated.  Further, there was no reference or images of the interior of the pub.

 

It was noted that whilst no loss of a pub was welcomed, the proposal was not like-for-like as a community pub was being lost.  Further, whilst the Pub Management Strategy was welcomed it was questioned if this would achieve what was intended given that it was not required before the pub opened by which point it would be difficult to amend.  The pub had been operating for 100 years and was used by local people and it was felt that history and local culture should be respected.

 

Further, it was felt that additional assurances should be given relating to the community role of the public house and a request was made that the application be deferred until the management strategy had been agreed. 

 

It was noted that whilst English Heritage had not listed the building due to lack of support and a speaker asked that the Committee considered it as a heritage asset and felt that the existing building was of a higher quality than the proposed development which would be out of character to the Creek Road area.

 

It was commented that the pub was very English in style, with a quality interior, unlike many eateries in the area. Further, that the new development may respect the construction of DLR Cutty Sark Station, but it was not felt that these were meaningful architectural development styles to aspire to and a request was made that the Committee visited Creek Road to see how the current building benefited the street scene and to consider if the new design was how they wished Greenwich to be perceived. 

 

The Principle Planning Officer confirmed that the Heritage Statement was prepared by a company appointed by the developers.

 

Members noted the concern that previous agreement of a shared open area to Bardsley Lane may have changed but the rear area of the public house was adjacent to the considerably larger green area of St Alfege’s Road recreation ground.

 

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee advising that English Heritage had declined to list the building.  Further, that the beer garden at the rear would be open and was enclosed only on two sides.

 

He advised that the previous landlady had not retired but had surrendered the lease as the business was not working.  Further, that the Lord Hood had closed in January despite a 50% reduction in rental charge over the last three years and expanding to include live music.

 

He stated that whilst a public house was an asset of community value, the Lord Hood was no longer an asset and the desire was to maintain the social aspect but that it was felt this could be done better than it was currently. 

 

The applicant’s architect added that it would be a high quality development as a purpose-built public house for this century.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent confirmed that the existing pub was old and not viable.  However, the new build would meet modern standards and demands on pubs, such as selling good food, and a large modern kitchen would be installed in the basement area.

 

He stated that the pub and flats were providing amenities that the area required and that he was confident that the flats would be taken up.

 

The architect confirmed that the building would be constructed of modern noise insulation and that this was one of the reasons why the beer garden would have a glazed roof.

 

In considering the application, Members’ felt that the building was of an anonymous design, that it could have been a stronger statement , would not improve the streetscape and questioned if the existing building should be retained. 

 

Concern was raised that alteration to the designated use of the ground floor and basement may be sought in the future.  Officers advised that Condition 19 could be strengthened to include policy EA(b) of the Council’s Core Strategy, in order to protect the ground floor and basement use as a public house.  Members agreed to the amendment should the overall application be agreed.

 

With the amendment to Condition 19, the matter was put to the vote;

 

For - 4;   Against – 3;  Abstentions - 0

 

Resolved -

 

1.     That it be agreed to grant full planning permission for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a part 4 / part 5-storey building, plus basement accommodating a replacement public house (A4 Use Class) on the ground floor and basement level, and 8 dwellings on the upper floors (2 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed) subject to:

 

i.   The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement  (obligations set out in section 24 of the main report); and

                    ii.     Conditions set out in Section 4.2 of the main report.

 

2.  That it be agreed that the reason for Condition 19 be strengthened to include policy EA(b) of the Council’s Core Strategy, in order to protect the ground floor and basement use as a public house.

Supporting documents: