Appeals

Latest Jobs

Principal Planning Officer (Policy): East of England; £30,495 - £37,785 p.a.
Head of Planning: North West England
Development Management Team Manager: East of England; £42,246 - £56,661 p.a.
Regeneration Manager: South East England; up to £45,818 p.a.
Planning Policy Technician: East of England; £19,435 - £24,076 PA
Principal Planning Policy Officer: South East England; Up to £32.19/hour
Senior Planner: South East England; £30,546 - £33,328 pa
Principal Planning Officer (Development Management): East of England; £42,838 pa
Planning Officer (Planning Policy): East of England; £29,853
Head of Borough Development: South West England; circa £57,000

DC Casebook: In depth - Mezzanine accepted as only way to ensure viability of listed hotel

Commercial and industrial

Planning, 12 December 2008

A mezzanine floor intended to accommodate a restaurant at a listed hotel in Cheshire has been allowed after an inspector agreed that the modern lightweight structure would ensure the continuing stewardship of the building.

The council's chief concern was the way that the former assembly room would be treated. The inspector considered that its main attributes were its height and volume, which articulated the space, and the plasterwork in the pilasters, dado, panels, cornice, frieze and ceiling. In principle, it seemed to him that the insertion of a new floor and associated features into the space would reduce the sense of height and volume.

However, he recognised that the degree of harm would depend to a significant extent on the manner in which the scheme was arranged and designed. He noted that the mezzanine floor would run into one of the walls but would be set in from the other walls and cover less than half of the footprint of the room. Subject to conditions on the detailed design, he decided that the degree of harm caused by the physical works need not be significant.

The inspector saw no convincing evidence that there were any possible uses for the room other than a restaurant. Given its lack of a street frontage, he agreed that other options would be severely limited and the prospect of it becoming redundant was a concern. He also heard that without the mezzanine and the extra covers it could accommodate, the payback period would be significantly longer than the 48 months generally necessary for the appellants or their financial backers to be prepared to proceed.

The council sought to show how the payback period might be shortened to around 63 months on the basis of the existing floor space. Bearing in mind that plenty of other more attractive commercial opportunities were available, the inspector saw no reason why the appellant would be prepared to press ahead with a less viable proposition in the appeal building. He decided that the restaurant would not be viable without the additional floor space.

In his view, the situation presented a stark choice between inclusion of extra floor space and redundancy of the room. He decided that the limited harm to the building would be outweighed by the benefit of a use that mirrored the room's original public function and the continuing stewardship that would result from a viable use.

DCS Number 100-058-673

Inspector Paul Griffiths; Inquiry.