Agenda item

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 17/0360 relating to the Ruskin Hotel, 55-61 Albert Road, Blackpool, for the erection of a bridge at first floor level connecting the rear elevation of the hotel with existing rear garage/accommodation block, external alterations, erection of glazed balustrade and parapet wall to roof of garage/accommodation block, and use of garage/accommodation block as altered as a leisure complex with roof terrace ancillary to main hotel.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with an overview of the application and the proposed site layout, location plans and aerial views of the site.  Visual images of the proposed development, which included the proposed bridge connecting the first floor of the building to the existing hotel, were also presented to the Committee. 

The property had recently been acquired by the Applicant and was located within the defined South Town Centre Main Holiday Accommodation Area. Mr Johnston reported on further planning history dating back to 1987 which had given permission for the parking of four vehicles within the building. The intention was to replace the existing garage doors at ground floor level with opaque glazing for the swimming pool and rest area.  The first floor would be used for changing rooms and spa facilities.  The roof would be used to provide a sun terrace with a high glazed parapet wall to prevent overlooking of adjacent properties.  Mr Johnston acknowledged the loss of parking spaces but in his view this was outweighed on balance by the enhanced facilities that would be on offer from the proposal.

Mr Johnston drew Members’ attention to the proposed conditions restricting the playing of live music, hours of use of the roof terrace and the requirement for the approval of a lighting scheme. 

Mr Morgan spoke in objection to the application, and raised concerns which included an increase in existing parking problems, access to his property particularly during the construction phase of the development, and noise.  He also disputed the number of current available parking spaces and reported on unsuccessful attempts to engage the applicant in discussions regarding the proposal.  Photographs provided by Mr Morgan to illustrate his concerns were circulated to the Committee and Members noted that the main issues from the photographs appeared to be related to the parking of service delivery vehicles.

Mr White also spoke in objection to the application and endorsed the concerns raised by Mr Morgan and asked the Committee to consider the impact of the proposed development on the neighbourhood.  He also reported on objections he had raised in relation to a previous application for development at the premises.

Mr Johnston responded to concerns raised and reported his view that he did not envisage that the proposed development, if approved, would adversely impact the amenities of nearby residents due to the proposed conditions relating to glazing of the roof terrace parapet wall and the restrictions around music and opening hours. 

During consideration of the application, the Committee acknowledged the benefits of the proposed development in terms of the significant investment in the holiday accommodation offer.  However, it was mindful of the potential impact on the amenity of nearby residents and guests of neighbouring hotels in terms of additional noise emanating from the spa facilities, and access and parking issues as a result of a potential increase in service delivery vehicles to the premises. 

The Committee considered that as a result of the potential issues that could adversely impact the amenity of nearby residents and guests of neighbouring hotels, it would be necessary to impose additional appropriate conditions requiring the approval of a servicing management plan and a restriction on the use of the spa facilities to residents of the Ruskin Hotel, should permission be granted.

Resolved:  That the application be approved, subject to the conditions, including the additional conditions to restrict the use of the facilities to residents only and the requirement to agree a servicing management plan to include a control of hours of service delivery, and for the reasons set out in the appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.