Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
44 Planning Application 18/1002/FUL - 211 - 213 Newmarket Road And 2 Godesdone Road PDF 300 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
adjourned 10:00am until 10:45 whilst Officers and the Chair considered an
allegation of procedural and factual errors regarding the consideration of this
application.
The Delivery
Manager said the complaint was made verbally just prior to the committee’s
meeting beginning. As the complaint was not made in writing and delivered
before Committee. The concerns would be addressed in the Officer’s introduction
to the application.
The Legal Advisor said the Committee had
sufficient detail and facts in the Officer’s report enabling it to come to a
decision today. A verbal complaint had been made today. Information regarding
the application had been in the public domain for some time so there had been
sufficient time for the complaint to be put in writing prior to this meeting.
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission. The application had been reported to the 17 June 2019
Planning Committee with an Officer recommendation of approval. During the
consideration of the application, Members of the Committee raised a number of
concerns about the proposal. Members’
concerns were sufficient for a move to refuse the application contrary to the
Officer recommendation. Members therefore resolved in favour of a ‘minded to
refuse’ decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation resulting with the
Adjourned Decision Protocol (ADP) being applied.
The Committee gave three reasons on which it
was minded to refuse planning permission and which are set out in the Officer’s
report.
The application sought approval for
demolition of existing buildings at 211-213 Newmarket Road and construction of
a hotel (C1 use), with change of use and conversion of 2 Godesdone
Road to C1 use, and provision of associated infrastructure.
The Committee received the Principal
Planner’s assessment of the three minded to refuse reasons. The Officer
corrected a typographical error in the planning report: the loading bay was on
the opposite side of the road to the location given in the report and further
towards Number 4.
The Chair asked the Committee if they had sufficient information to
consider the application today in light of the verbal complaint, or if they
wished to defer the application to seek further information. The Committee unanimously resolved to consider and determine the application
today.
The Committee discussed the following points:
i.
Concerns had not been addressed relative to surface
water and foul water drainage.
ii.
The application would not alleviate traffic
problems in the area. There was an expectation of higher numbers of cars/people
visiting the site if it became a hotel (compared to its current usage).
iii.
Local residents could be disturbed by:
a.
Taxis dropping off visitors.
b.
Hotel guests smoking and talking outside the hotel
as it had no café/amenity area where guest could congregate.
iv.
Queried if the application was for a super-budget
hotel as costs were similar to ‘normal’ hotels.
v.
Disagreed there was unmet demand for (super budget)
hotels in the city. The Hotel Future Study was out of date.
The Principal Planner responded to Councillors:
i.
The Committee were asked to consider the ‘minded to
refuse’ reasons as set out in the Officer’s report. All concerns should have
been raised and discussed at the 17 June Committee so Members could set out
reasons why they were minded to refuse, and confirm which, if any of these were
still relevant. New reasons should not be introduced now.
Anglian Water had made a representation, which
focussed on surface water.
The Officer:
i. Recommended an additional foul water drainage condition in response to the representation.
ii.
There were low visitor numbers to the site when
Coopers traded from the site. The site had an A1 use so a new user could have
higher throughput of visitors (under the existing use).
iii.
The hotel could instruct taxis to drop-off
customers in Newmarket Road to minimise disturbance to neighbours although such
a requirement would be difficult to enforce. There were no Highways Authority
objections to the application.
iv.
The application was described as a super budget
hotel. It was similar in cost to others but had fewer facilities.
v.
The Hotel Future Study stated demand for budget
hotels had been satisfied. However, Officers were aware that circumstances had
changed since the study was commissioned. A business case was also set out in
the Applicant’s report, so there was a need for overnight accommodation.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 3 votes to 3 – and on Chair’s casting
vote) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the
Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, and
subject to (1) the conditions recommended therein; (2) the prior completion of
a Section 106 Agreement securing the planning obligations identified in the
Officer’s report; (3) the additional conditions recommended within the Highway
Authority’s consultation responses; (4) a condition requiring foul water
drainage details.