Eight apartments at The Duke Of Buckingham Hotel, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application proposed converting the hotel and restaurant into eight apartments, with rear extensions, refuse storage and cycle storage.

“CONVERSION OF EXISTING HOTEL AND RESTAURANT TO FORM 8 NO. APARTMENTS (CLASS C3) TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF REAR EXTENSIONS AT GROUND, FIRST, AND SECOND FLOOR, WITH REFUSE AND CYCLE STORAGE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS (UPDATED DRAWINGS RECEIVED)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a three-and-a-half-storey hotel and restaurant building with a rear extension, service yard and separate rear building outside the application.

“The application site is a three and a half storey building. The ground floor was used as a pub and more recently a restaurant however during the application process, the restaurant closed. The upper floors are used as a hotel which consists of 13 room. These rooms are a mixture of double, twin, single and family rooms with either ensuite or shared bathroom. There is also an annex room which is also being developed as part of the proposal.”

“Both side and rear elevational material palettes consist of a mixture of white casement and aluminium windows, red brick at the ground floor with the parapet and subsequent floor levels being cream render. The building steps down to the rear in a single storey extension with an associated delivery/service yard.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered mansard roofs and bed-and-breakfast rooms, while a separate student halls application remained pending consideration.

“App No A*19513/AC - construction of a mansard roof with dormer windows to south and north roof slopes and conversion of first and second floors to form twelve bed & breakfast letting rooms (class c1) including in-fill extension to the rear Decision - Conditional Permission Date 24.05.2002”

“App No 24/01086/FUL Conversion of existing hotel and restaurant, to form a 17 person student halls of residence (Class C1) including communal facilities to include construction of rear extensions at ground, first, and second floor Decision Pending Consideration Date TBC”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional permission because the scheme would provide needed housing, reuse an existing building and produce acceptable design, amenity, highway and heritage impacts.

“There is a pressing need for housing, and the Council has an extremely challenging housing delivery target. The Council is currently not meeting the Government's Housing Delivery Test or housing land supply. It is concluded above that the development will preserve the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. In carrying out an Appropriate Assessment, the scheme can also successfully mitigate its impacts on habitats sites.”

“The extension to the rear of the building, is appropriate in scale, form and design that causes less than substantial harm to the conservation area. The application has acceptable impacts on parking demand and highways safety. The proposal will provide much needed housing in Portsmouth and outweighs any negative attributes the development may have.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and waste raised no objections subject to conditions, while conservation officers identified modest heritage harm and environmental health raised no outright objection.

“Conservation and Design The Current NPPF (2025) - at Para 215 makes clear that: Where a development proposal (as here) will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, in this case the Old Portsmouth Conservation Area (No.4), and The Grade II listed No. St Thomas Street, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

“Environmental Health There are no outright objections to the proposal. Having reviewed the plans provided, the applicant has used the 25-degree rule (used as a guideline to assess potential impact regarding daylight) and this indicates the development is unlikely to have a significant effect or cause significant loss of daylight to any neighbouring property.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two deputations opposed the application, the agent spoke in favour, and a ward councillor spoke against it.

Members discussed the scheme

Members recognised the housing benefits but debated the frontage, access, bins, ventilation, parking, the mansard’s effects and changed views from nearby properties.

“Members' Questions In response to questions, officers provided the following information as clarification: • Rooflights would provide additional light and ventilation to the flats at the rear of the building. • Officers were satisfied that it was feasible to make an opening for ventilation in the glazed front elevation of flat no.1 and advised members not to veer into building regulation matters that were dealt with at a later stage.”

“Members' Comments In discussion, members made the following comments: • Members were mindful of the National Planning Policy Framework where the presumption was in favour of sustainable development unless the Local Plan stated otherwise. The proposal provided much needed housing and would avoid the building falling into disuse and disrepair. However, there were concerns over the "dead" frontage, the ground floor, access and bins.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee authorised delegated conditional permission subject to SPA, nitrate and bird-disturbance mitigation, with further conditions and a six-month fallback refusal.

“RESOLVED 1. That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to satisfactory agreement of an internal local authority approval mechanism (an equivalent legal agreement) to secure: (a) SPA mitigation, nitrates and bird disturbance.”

“That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to add/amend conditions where necessary. That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to refuse planning permission if an internal local authority approval mechanism (an equivalent legal agreement) has not been satisfactorily agreed within six months of the date of this resolution. 4.”

Minutes