Agenda item

Erection of 97 bedroom hotel.  [Micklegate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full major application by Mr Paul Manku for the erection of a 97 bedroom hotel.

 

Officers provided a written update, a copy of which was attached to the online agenda. They advised that since the publication of the agenda comments had been received from the following:

 

Councillor Hayes objected to the application as he felt the development was too large and would not be in keeping with its location on the riverside. It would also overshadow the houses on Lower Ebor Street. He added that there were concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated in a tranquil area and felt that the riverside would be diminished with a development of the size proposed.

 

There had been comments received from the caravan club:

 

·        There was limited space for a landscape buffer and landscaping conditions were requested to maintain the setting of the caravan park, by giving privacy at the boundary & limiting light pollution.

·        There is potential for noise during construction.  A condition is asked for, to approve a CEMP & restrict times of working (note a CEMP is required under condition 7).

·        Potential noise from the aparthotel, because the proposed use could operate as a venue for conferences, functions and events and therefore will be operational late in to evening and over the weekends, unlike the approved hotel.  A condition is requested that these extra uses are not permitted. 

·        Conditions are also requested to control noise, cooking odour and times of deliveries

 

Comments received from local residents included:

 

·        The Council will be held liable for any issues, loss or damages whatsoever created by the scheme. This includes road traffic noise, nuisance, damage, disruption, deterioration in any aspect generally, any nuisance, damage and disruption caused locally by the proposed build itself or afterwards by any nuisance, damage, disruption or similar which in any way results in loss of amenity, enjoyment or reduction in value of property or wellbeing.

·        The Council are representatives of local residents and should not ignore the significant level of public objection to the scheme.

·        The caravan club is well-managed and does not tolerate anti-social behaviour.  It is noted that there is curfew and occupants need to be back on site in the evening. 

·        The Environment Agency (EA) had proposed improved flood defences for the area which are unlikely to occur if this development were to go ahead.

 

A written objection on behalf of Duke’s Wharf residents had been received from AAH Planning. It stated that the scheme was not compliant with recent Environment Agency (EA) policy on recommended finished floor levels.

 

This objection suggested that the application be deferred to allow the applicants to remodel against the most up-to-date climate change figures.

 

Members were informed that the Council’s Drainage Engineer had provided further technical information, details of which were included in the Officer update, which was published online.

 

It was reported that were two registrations to speak in objection to the application:

 

Robert Walker, spoke on behalf of the residents at Duke’s Wharf flats. He highlighted to Members that the proposed development would increase activity on the site, and the access would be parallel to Duke’s Wharf flats. He advised that the site had been flooded forty five times since 2001 and commented on finished floor levels.

 

John Railton, another Duke’s Wharf resident made comments on how he felt that the hotel could attract anti social behaviour and that the caravan club would be adversely affected by overlooking.

 

One speaker had registered to speak in support:

 

Mike Hitchmough, the architect for the applicant, spoke about how he felt that aparthotel model would support the revitalisation of the local area. He indicated that the building had twenty three fewer rooms, than originally proposed,  and that the emergency exit had been located away from Lower Ebor Street.

It was confirmed that the evacuation arrangements in the event of a flood were via gates in to the caravan club and then into Vine Street.

 

In response to points raised by objectors, the architect responded that discussions were ongoing with the Environment Agency to increase the flood defence wall. The business model of the aparthotel also allowed for it to be closed for part of the year. In regards to anti social behaviour, the applicant had met with Clementhorpe Residents Association to discuss these concerns.

 

A Member of Council had registered to speak in objection:

 

Councillor Hayes spoke as the Ward Member. He underlined that the site sat at the tip of a green wedge of land and informed Members how the site was also located within a Conservation Area. He felt that the proposal was out of scale and was also concerned about flooding and traffic.

 

The Council’s Flood Risk Engineer informed the Committee that a flood barrier in the area would not be jeopardised by approving the application. He also added that the ground floor level of the proposed hotel was 600m above the modelled flood level and was protected up to a 1 in 1000 year storm. There was also a dry land evacuation route from the hotel. He added that the Environment Agency had objected to the application as they felt by approving the application, the Council might deviate from the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

 

Members entered into debate during which the following views and points were expressed;

 

·        The trees on the site would be protected and there would be more flood storage offered than previously.

·        The proposal was contrary to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, it was overbearing and unattractive.

·        There had been no comments received from Economic Development Officers, when it could have a detrimental effect on economic growth in the area- particularly in relation to the caravan park

·        There would be a greater traffic impact from an Aparthotel.

 

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Officer’s report and the following amended and additional condition which are stated below;

 

19 Landscaping

 

A detailed landscaping scheme, following the principles shown on the approved landscaping plans, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first use of the development hereby approved. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Details shall be provided showing how the landscaping/stepped entrance around the front/east entrance will be introduced without harm to tree roots.The hard landscaping measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation. The soft landscaping measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within 6 months of first occupation. Any trees or plants which within the lifetime of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless alternatives are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: So that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied with the variety, suitability and disposition of species within the site, in the interests of visual amenity and the setting of heritage assets.

 

20 External Lighting

 

Prior to installation details of any external lighting to be installed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include design and location of light fittings, and the level of luminance measured in lux, in the vertical and horizontal planes. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the conservation area.

 

Reason: (i) The principle of developing a city centre use at this edge of centre site has been accepted previously and is again justified for the proposed hotel use; there would be no material impact on the vitality and viability of the city centre.

 

(ii)The scheme adheres to the design principles approved previously.  The design and proposed materials are appropriate to the locality and the landscaping scheme would improve the condition of the site.  There would not be harm to the conservation area.

 

(iii) The building would be reasonably safe from flooding and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.  Appropriate management arrangements would be put in place to protect future users.  The proposal meets the requirements of the NPPF sequential and exception tests and is acceptable when considered against national planning policy on flood risk.  There is justification to outweigh the presumption against developing a hotel on this site established in the local SFRA which dates from 2013, when read in conjunction with the NPPF and Environment Agency advice.

 

(iv)The scheme discourages private car use and the car parking provision on site is minimal.  There would be no material impact on highway safety along Terry Avenue and its use for recreation would not be compromised. 

 

(v)Terry Avenue is a popular recreational route and the site is next door to a caravan site.  There is no substantiated evidence that users of the hotel would cause additional noise disturbance compared to other users of the avenue at night.  The scheme would improve the appearance of the site and the building has been designed so there would be no undue impact on neighbour’s amenity.  There are no amenity grounds to oppose the application.  There is no unacceptable harm to amenity on which grounds the application could reasonably be refused.