Agenda item

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side.

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The building had been used for the last 40 years as offices, Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm with no disturbances to residents
• Hotel users would be arriving and departing late into the night and in the early hours of the morning to catch flights and would result in noise from doors slamming  and gates shutting
• There would not be enough room for taxis to pull up in the hotel, which would result in passengers being dropped off right outside residents’ houses
• Harvard House was surrounded by homes with young families who would be affected by noise in a quiet residential lane
•  Residents had a right to privacy and family life and considered that regulation HR1998, article 8 allowed for them to be afforded this right
• There were currently issues with parking in Summerhouse Lane; additional parking from delivery vehicles to the hotel would result in unacceptable traffic congestion
• Parking problems would be further compounded by 24/ 7 parking in the area by hotel users
• Access to Harvard House was on a narrow stretch of Summerhouse Lane and concerned that delivery vehicles would obstruct the lane, which could prevent  emergency vehicles reaching residents
• Suggested that delivery times for any future office occupiers of this building should be between the hours of 09.30am to 14.30pm to avoid school drop-off and pick-up times at the primary and nursery schools at the other end of the lane
• Already in a high pollution area and cooking fumes and smells 365 days a year from the hotel would be unacceptable and regardless of the height of the flues, cooking smells would blow into residents’ homes and gardens.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Supported all the points that had been raised by the petitioners

• Reiterated that Summerhouse Lane was a residential area with families with young children served by a nursery and a school
• A business had operated from Harvard House for over the last 40 years  from 9am to 5pm
• Acknowledged that there was currently an increasing requirement for more accommodation
• Suggested that Bath Road was now served exclusively by hotel accommodations
• The village had been blighted for over 20 years and did not need  another hotel in this residential area
• Suggested that there were ample public houses, restaurants and enough parking in Harmondsworth House and saw no reason for Harvard House to be converted into a hotel.

The agent made the following points:

• Had lived in the area for 15 years
• Disagreed with points raised about parking issues, as traffic occurred only during the school run
• Suggest that there was not so much traffic during the evenings as claimed
• Cars were directed from Harmondsworth Hall  to park in Harvard House car park and not on the road
• Period properties  were difficult to sell and Harvard House had been on the market for 18 months without a successful buyer
• Harvard House was a listed building which would depreciate and become dilapidated if not sold
• In respect of the proposed restaurant, suggested that the local public houses only offered ‘pub food’

In answer to a question as to why the car park at Harvard House was being used by guests at Harmondsworth Hall for parking, the applicant explained that this was for security reasons.

The Committee attached additional conditions requiring an outline of the acoustic measures that were being proposed, as well as to ensure that the existing kitchen door remained closed and only opened in the event of an emergency. A further condition was attached requiring soft gravel in the parking and manoeuvring area to reduce the gravel noise.

Condition 12 was amended by deleting the word ‘disposal’ in the second paragraph on page 87 in the report. 

A member highlighted that the paragraph in the report at 7.01 (point (i)) did not apply to this proposed development as it was not in a mixed use area, was not on a primary or secondary road and no public transport. Expressed concerns about the use of Policy T4.

The Chairman asked officers to explain points T4 to the Committee.

Officers explained each point and advised that there were bed and breakfast and other uses in the area and on balance; it was an area where houses were changing in use with some mixed use in the locality. The proposed development was near a main road (Class A) and there was no requirement for it to be located on a main road. 

Officers explained that point (iii) had been a key concern of the Noise Officer and a robust condition had been imposed to control noise, lighting, hours etc.

With regard to parking, officers advised that this proposed 9 bedroom development had three parking spaces and refusal on this ground was unlikely to stand on appeal.

Officers stated that advice had been sought from the Noise and Highway officers and indicated that refusal could therefore not be sported on the basis of Policy T4.

The Committee requested Condition 25 on parking to be more robustly worded to ensure that all parking was contained within the curtilage of the proposed development.

In response to a query raised about Policy LE4 which restricted office space, officers advised this had been included in the report in error as this application was not an industrial use. The Head of Planning Consumer Protection, Sport and Green Spaces asked the Committee to strike out that part of the report.

The Chairman indicated that the application should be deferred in order for officers to review the report and provide the appropriate policy committee for the Committee to consider.

The Legal Advisor commented that Planning Officers had pointed out the error in the report and had asked the Committee to disregard that area in the report. However, Committee members could also request officers to review the report.

In response to a query, officers confirmed that no comments had been received from the Council’s Planning Policy Team.

It was moved, seconded and agreed that the application be deferred for clarity and Policy comments.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for clarity and Policy comments.