Issue - meetings

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii)) at ground and first floor level.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, further noting that the £160,000 as a financial contribution to be used towards Active Travel Zone improvements in the vicinity of the site.

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii)) at ground and first floor level.

Officers presented the application and noted that this item had been deferred from the April Committee meeting. Officers highlighted the addendum, which noted an amendment to the Active Travel Zone Head of Term. Officers presented additional information that had been received by the applicant which sought to clarify points raised at the previous Committee meeting around hotel use, length of stay, a Hotel Management Strategy, shuttle minibus, green credentials, and some additional conditions that had been agreed.

Before the meeting, comments had been received from Councillor Stuart Mathers and Councillor Kamal Kaur as Ward Councillors of the application site (Wood End ward). These comments included a request to extend the non-delivery hours to the site to the later time of 18:30 and requested enforcement to ensure that Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) did not wait on local residential roads during non-delivery times. The comments also noted that the shuttle bus did not alleviate concerns over potential increased traffic and parking at the site. The Ward Councillors believed that the insufficient on-site parking provision would have a detrimental impact on local residents and other businesses in an area with existing heavy traffic and very limited parking provision, which may result in an overspill of parking into the surrounding residential streets.

In response to this, officers noted that a restriction of 5.5 hours for deliveries was excessive and unreasonable. Usual hours of 07:00-09:00 and 15:00-17:00 were already in place. Increasing this to 15:00-18:30 would cause more harm as it would lengthen the construction process. Officers further noted that enforcement was usually policed through the Construction Management Plan, and so was added to Condition 3.

The Chairman noted that this application had been extensively debated at the previous Committee meeting, which included discussion around the 90-day stay and other points on which the Committee wanted further clarification.

Officers further noted the extensive debate at the previous Committee meeting, and noted the advice summarised on page 10-11 of the agenda. It was noted that the proposal was not for dwellings; and hotel bedrooms had no independent access; and guests could not use the site to register to vote. There were no restrictions on length of stay under the use classes order, and the Committee had to judge the application on its merits.

On extending the delivery restrictions to 5.5 hours, the Committee would need a very clear basis on which to impose this. It was noted that there had been one resident objection to the application since the previous Committee meeting.

Members thanked officers and the applicant for the quick turnaround in being able to bring this application back to Committee so soon. Members asked what the standard restrictions on deliveries were. Officers noted that usual restrictions were 07:00-09:00 and 16:00-18:00,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8