Mixed-use hotel and housing scheme at The Quay Thistle Hotel, The Quay, Poole

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing hotel and building five buildings with 179 homes, a hotel, commercial units, parking and landscaping.

“At the Planning Committee of 17 th August 2023, members considered a planning application at The Quay Thistle Hotel, The Quay, Poole for the demolition of the existing hotel building and redevelopment to provide a mixed use scheme of five buildings providing flexible commercial units at ground floor with 179 residential units above and a hotel with ancillary bar/restaurant, plus basement level car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, revised access and…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site covered about 0.74 hectares beside The Quay, Ballard Road and East Quay Road, within the town centre heritage conservation area and a tourism zone.

“The application site (hereon referred to as “the Site”) is a c. 0.74 hectare parcel of land bounded by The Quay to the south/east, Ballard Road to the northeast and East Quay Road to the north. The southern part of Fishermans Road abuts the southwest Site boundary.”

“The Site is within the Poole Town Centre Heritage Conservation Area (CA) but does not contain any statutorily or locally listed buildings. The locally listed RNLI Lifeboat Museum is located c. 23m to the southeast of the Site. Also to the north of the Site is…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A similar larger scheme was refused and dismissed on appeal, with concerns including heritage, townscape, trees and mitigation.

“Heritage and townscape impact, due to the excessive scale and extent 2. Long-term harm to protected trees in the north of the Site 3. Failure to provide sufficient affordable housing 4. Failure to provide mitigation measures for open space, education, healthcare, highway impacts, heathland mitigation and Poole Harbour mitigation.”

“Following the refusal, an appeal was lodged and affordable housing viability information was found to be acceptable by the Council in relation to reason for refusal 3. The appeal was subsequently upheld by the Inspector, who maintained reasons for refusal numbers 1 (heritage/townscape) and 2 (impact on trees).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the landowners had not completed the required Section 106 Agreement after repeated deadlines and prolonged delay.

“Instructions were subsequently issued to the Council’s Legal team and work was commenced on preparing the Section 106 Agreement. The Section 106 Agreement was subsequently issued in April 2025 for signing by the landowners.”

“The return of the hard copy engrossments of the Section 106 Agreement signed by the landowners have been awaited since but have not been forthcomi ng within the multiple deadlines that have been set.”

Officer report

Why the agreement mattered

Without the agreement, heathland and harbour mitigation, transport measures, open-space improvements, education, healthcare and heritage protection were not secured.

“In this instance, the application site is located within 5km (but not within 400m) of the designated Dorset Heathlands/Dorset Heaths and therefore the proposed net increase in residential dwellings would not be acceptable without appropriate mitigation of the adverse impact upon the Heathland arising from them.”

“Similarly, evidence demonstrates that there are also recreational pressures on Poole Harbour (SPA and Ramsar site) which can have a harmful effect on the interests features for which it has been designated. Therefore, all new residential development in Poole also has to provide mitigation to ensure the impact of additional visitors to Poole Harbour can be managed without causing harm to protected wildlife.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Several consultees supported the revised scheme subject to conditions, while heritage, urban design, biodiversity and earlier highways concerns were raised.

“11/07/2023 No Objection • The development is supported, subject to the following conditions: o A barrier has been added to the underground car park; however, this would not provide sufficient security – a full automatic security gate should be provided. “The underground car park complies with the requirements for Section 63.3 and 63.4 of Secured By Design ‘Homes 2023’.” o The proposed canopies and large stairs for seating can encourage antisocial behaviour issues.”

“The harm to the Conservation Area and Locally Listed Lifeboat Museum in this case are in the low to moderate scale of harm though the proposals do not preserve the area character or appearance of the areas as required by statute [The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: S.72 (1)].” • “Based on NPPF 206 the Council should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better…”

Officer report

What people said

Most public responses objected, citing housing affordability, building scale, heritage, amenity, parking, transport, construction, flooding and infrastructure pressures.

“Transport • The development has insufficient parking. There will be loss of public car park spaces. The development would exacerbate local parking stress and prevent existing residents from accessing amenities. • the current car ownership for flats and apartments in the area is 0.5 vehicles per home. • The access roads are in reality halved as it's a waterfront development. • The area is overcrowded and all the extra building would completely overcrowd the area.”

“The Benchmark Land Value is inflated and should provide 10 per cent affordable housing. If the council decides to grant permission for this application, then a review mechanism should be incorporated into the S106 agreement, as found by the inspector at appeal. • Housing would not meet market demand, we need local housing needs which is affordable housing or market family housing with 2 or 3 bedrooms.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors were listed to speak, with no registered applicant supporters or ward councillors.

The committee vote

The committee voted unanimously to refuse planning permission in accordance with the recommendation.

“Resolved to REFUSE permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes