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 an application for the erection of a part 5 /part 6 / part 7 storey block of 91 self-contained permanent flats with car parking for 84 vehicles, access and associated works following demolition of existing hotels.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, gave a brief overview of the application and presented the site location and layout plans.  Visual images were shown depicting the elevations of the proposed development, the distances in relation to neighbouring properties and the car parking provision.  He also showed sketched drawings that provided an illustration of the proposed development. Mr Johnston advised Members that this was an amended planning application following the Committee’s refusal of a previous application.   He reported on the key changes that had been made to the proposed development since the refusal which included a reduction in the number of flats from 99 to 91, a reduction in the size of the penthouse and sixth floors and the removal of the majority of balconies to the rear elevation of the property.

Members were referred to the additional representations and associated photographs contained within the Update Note and Mr Johnston circulated A3 sized images of the site layout plan which had been annotated with information from an objector.

Mrs Harrison spoke in objection to the application and raised concerns relating to the scale and intensity of the development, car parking provision, public safety and impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Mr Richardson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.  He outlined the current problems at the development site and his view that there was a reduced need for the maximum level of recommended car parking spaces due to the sustainability of the location.  He also reported on the changes made to the original application in terms of the scale and size of the development and highlighted similarities with the Hampton by Hilton Hotel development where planning permission had previously been granted.

Following invitation by the Chairman, Mr Johnston responded to the concerns raised by acknowledging the narrow width of the road network.  However, he considered that this was mitigated by the various access and egress routes to and from the site.  He accepted that there would be some impact on the Ocean Bay Hotel but in his view this was considered acceptable when weighed against the regeneration benefits of the proposed development.  As regards the car parking provision, he reported on the sustainability of the location, its proximity to a Local and District Centre and the impact on the viability of the scheme if more parking spaces were provided.  On balance, his view was that the regeneration benefits of the proposal outweighed the deficiency in car parking provision and the potential impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

In response to concerns raised by the Committee regarding lack of disabled parking, Mr Johnston stated that the Government guidelines were normally enforced more rigidly in commercial developments. In relation to the loss of holiday accommodation, he reported on the material change in circumstances on the Crescent since 2011 and that this, along with the significant holiday accommodation investment from the Hampton by Hilton Hotel, would align with the Council’s policy on achieving a balance of holiday accommodation and residential offer on the Promenade.

During consideration of the application the Committee raised concerns relating to insufficient parking provision and its potential impact upon on-street parking.  Members were also concerned at the scale and intensity of the development and its impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.  Further concerns related to the loss of hotel accommodation in a main holiday accommodation area.  Whilst the Committee acknowledged the need for development of the area and the lack of alternative development proposals, it considered on balance that the issues outlined above outweighed the potential regeneration benefits of the proposed development.

Resolved: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

NOTE:  MOTION MOVED, SECONDED, VOTED UPON AND LOST

During consideration of the above item, the following motion was moved, seconded, voted upon and lost:

‘That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.’

Background Papers:

Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.