Agenda item

Councillor Lillywhite left the Chamber for the duration of the following discussion.

MJC introduced the application as above.  There will be a net gain of 18 rooms.  The scheme has been amended during the application process, taking into account neighbours’ concerns about loss of amenity.  The hotel is situated in a prominent location in the AONB, and is at Committee at the request of Councillor Helen McCloskey on account of concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity.  The recommendation is to permit, with conditions.

Public Speaking:

Mr Chris Gray, agent, in support

There are a few areas of the application which need to be emphasised.  Firstly, the application site had several challenges:  AONB, protected trees, London Road, impact on neighbouring properties.  The applicant entered into pre-app discussions to address neighbours’ concerns, with several options being considered, and ultimately agreed that the eastern boundary was the best place to develop – with natural landscape, avoiding over-development on the main road, and with a right of way track between the hotel and Woodgate Drive to ensure good separation.  Regarding functions, the pre-app proposed additional bedroom suites and a function room for weddings, business conferences etc, on the eastern boundary, but as a result of neighbour concerns about noise, overspill and parking, the function room has now been omitted from the proposal, leaving the application for additional bedrooms and upgraded guest facilities well away from residential properties.  There will be sufficient guest parking on site.  Regarding scale and massing, the footprint has been reduced, and the upper storey windows will have fully obscure glass and be fixed, to avoid any concerns about overlooking. 

Member debate:

PB:  how are comments from the trees officer and landscape architect to be addressed?

SW:  is disappointed he was not able to be on Planning View for this.  Has two issues: one, the very large tree on the roadway – trees officers do not have any issue but it seems close to the road, and would therefore like reinforcement.  Secondly, this proposal is listed as an extension but in fact it is a whole new building in the AONB.  The extension is as big as the original building.  This is a cause for concern, although does not want to hamper business.

HM:  as PB has said, would like to hear what officers have to say about removal of trees, and the requirements under the wildlife and countryside act.  Do conditions include that provision?

MJC, in response:

-       will do best to answer questions – the case officer is unwell;

-       to PB, the trees officer’s comments and request for reinforced grass have been fed back to the applicant.  Landscape measures should be introduced to prevent cars from going under the trees.  The hedge under the tree to the north boundary should act as a barrier, and negates the need for reinforced grass there.  The trees officer welcomes the landscape plan and has recommended conditions accordingly;

-       to SW, regarding the size of the extension, it is physically linked to the hotel and is therefore classed as an extension, albeit almost a stand-alone building;

-       the fact that the site is in the AONB has been given a lot of consideration, with the effect on views both in and out weighing heavily in the officer’s deliberations.  Once again, the planning balance is the consideration here, weighing up the effect of the proposal on the AONB and the neighbours’ concerns and the economic aspect.  The proposal will affect the AONB, but not enough to withhold permission;

-       to HM, there are no conditions to say that trees have to be taken down at a particular time; that is different legislation.  The onus is on the applicant to remove the trees in a legal way.  In the past, informatives have been attached, to remind the applicant that it is essential to removes trees at a particular time, with a legal requirement to do so.  Recommends an informative along those lines in this case.

CH:  is broadly in favour of this application, noting that the houses at the back are fairly close together, rather than an open block, and there is a hedge between.  This is a sensitive area in the AONB, but the proposal will not overly affect views in, being hidden from the road, and the first view out of the AONB is towards an urban area.  Agrees that we need to be careful, and make sure the development conforms with regard to trees and wildlife etc.  On the whole, thinks this should be permitted, and that the additional bedrooms are OK.

GB:  reminds Members that it is not necessary for them to endorse the officer recommendation.

PT:  technically, this is in the AONB, and this proposal will make a mish-mash of this little corner of it.  It is currently attractive and workable, and although it won’t be possible to see the new building from the road, it will be possible to see the huge car park.  It is wrong that this area can be destroyed so thoroughly; it could be done better.  There are a lot of trees with their own ecology, and it’s a shame to see them go.

SW:  from the drawing, it appears that the proposed driveway will go right up to the trunk of the best tree on the site.  If that is the case, the driveway should be moved to the north.

MJC, in response:

-       the drawing is telling.  As Members saw on site, that arrangement exists at the moment – the tree is very close to the driveway.  It is a protected tree and the proposal won’t change that.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

3 in objection

0 abstention

PERMIT

Councillor Lillywhite returned to the Chamber.