Issue - meetings

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.