Agenda item

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Condition 17 would be substituted as detailed below:

If during development, contamination not previously identified is found present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the a remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which requires development to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution (paragraph 109) and to ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (paragraph 12).]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Condition 18 would be removed.]

[NOTE 3: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr Michael Taplin attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Alistair Ingram spoke in support.]

The Committee considered a planning application for the construction of a part two storey, part single storey extension to the north side of the existing hotel annex (C1) to provide a net gain of 18 bedrooms, following demolition of Arthurs Bridge House which was currently used as staff accommodation. A further single storey extension was proposed to the north elevation of the existing annex to create a lobby.

The existing vehicular access from Bridge Barn Lane currently located to the south east of the site would be relocated to the north east of the site. The proposed reconfiguration of the car park would result in a net increase of 10 standard spaces and 3 disabled spaces.   

Councillor H Addison, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application. Councillor H Addison was concerned by the dominant nature and scale of the extension and thought that its placement would be detrimental to the Grade 2 Listed Building. It was also suggested that the extension would increase congestion on Bridge Barn Lane and was insensitive to local residents. Councillor H Addison thought that some simple changes could be made to the application to make it acceptable to local residents. It was also noted that the proposed location of the extension was over an old cesspit.

The Planning Officer commented that the proposed location of the extension had been chosen to protect the mature trees onsite and to retain the setting of Bridge Barn which was a Grade 2 listed building. The extension had been designed in the same materials to be sympathetic to the existing annex and it was noted that the separation distance from the street scene complied with the guidelines in the supplementary planning document. With regard to a possible increase in congestion, the Planning Officer commented that the peak arrival and departure time for the hotel was likely to differ from school drop off and pick up time, so it was anticipated that this would have minimal impact.

It was noted that the new Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document was approved by Council on 5 April 2018. Following a query it was noted that the application did comply with the new parking standards.

The Vice-Chairman asked the Planning Officer to address the concerns raised by the public speaker in regard to Design Policy CS21. The Planning Officer advised the Committee that although the extension was closer to the street scene than the existing annex, it did continue the building line and the position meant that mature trees on site were unaffected. The bulk, mass and scale had been designed to match the existing site. The Planning Officer concluded that in their opinion the application did comply with Design Policy CS21.

Regarding the location of the old cesspit, the Planning Officer advised the Committee that this was not a planning concern and would be dealt with under Building Regulations during construction.

Members welcomed the addition of a disabled room in the proposed extension.

Some Members thought that the relocation of the entrance would not increase congestion and perhaps would reduce it as it would be further away from Goldsworth Primary school.

RESOLVED

The planning permission be granted subject to conditions.