Public reports pack PDF 9 MB - Gravesham Borough Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 46 accommodate this. It is however reiterated that whilst the retention of this lay by is the preference of officers, its deletion does not raise a fundamental highway objection. Ancillary Uses Turning to other impacts, a potential source of concern regarding applications for hotels relates to ancillary uses. This issue also causes some contention in determining which uses are ancillary and which result in a material change of use. If a hotel use is approved, uses which are judged to be ancillary, perhaps such as a hotel shop, restaurant and/or bar, will not require further planning consent. It is not anticipated though that the application subject of this report will raise significant issues with regards to ancillary uses due primarily to the restricted size of the building itself as well as the site. The majority of the site around the building will be allocated for car parking, whilst the only communal spaces within the building are modest rooms on the upper floors. Unlike the previously approved hotel, this proposal does not include a communal dining/drinking area to serve the residents. However, as identified in the earlier paragraph some small scale ancillary uses could be incorporated into the building without the need for planning permission. To this end, subject to the necessary licensing requirements, a residents bar/restaurant could be provided within this building without the requirement for planning permission. In view of the above raised issues with possible disturbance to the neighbouring residents, the introduction of such a facility only has the potential to worsen this situation. However, being an ancillary use the cumulative harm that may be caused by the introduction of this facility over and above the principle use may not be explicit. To overcome this concern the Local Planning Authority is able to impose a planning condition to require the applicant to make a formal application for any proposed ancillary uses such as a hotel bar, restaurant or shop. However, in considering this option it is relevant for Members to be aware that planning conditions are required to meet the basic tests set out in Circular 11/95, two of which requires the condition to be “reasonable” and “necessary”. In the situation whereby the harm that may be caused by the introduction of ancillary uses is not clear cut, it may be that such a condition would fail to meet these tests. Buildings Regulations/Fire Safety Whilst matters of fire safety and building regulations are not subject to consideration at this stage, it was considered prudent to informally discuss the proposal with relevant officers to gauge an initial opinion. In this respect, comment received from both a fire safety officer and a building control officer confirmed that the layout and arrangement of the building, with staircase access at either end and a spine corridor within, would appear to lend itself to the proposed use. Conclusion The previous planning permission for hotel use granted under reference 20080087 is a material consideration to be taken into account by Members in determining this application. In considering this application it is the stance of the Local Planning Authority that, although the arrangement of the accommodation has altered from the previous approval, it is still tantamount to being a hotel. REPORT NO 7 PAGE 14
Page 47 Whilst the principle of a hotel use at this location is acceptable, it is though considered that the key issue for consideration by Members under this application is the possible impacts that this proposal will have over and above that of the originally approved hotel. To this end it is worthy of note that the overall number of bedrooms has been reduced from 60 to 48 and so at maximum occupancy would accommodate less people. However, the revised internal arrangement does have the potential to generate additional disturbance by incorporating a residents lounge at each level that may be more difficult to control, which would require control through good management of the premises. It would appear as though the key concern with a hostel type use over that of a hotel relates primarily to occupation. Generally speaking a hotel would provide accommodation for smaller groups of people, perhaps a family or few friends, whereas a hostel would provide accommodation for larger groups. It is therefore considered that to impose an occupancy limit on this hotel to require that it is not used for large groups of people being crammed together in single rooms may reduce concerns with the possible disturbance that could be generated by a higher intensity of use. To that end it is suggested that a planning condition be imposed restricted the number of residents occupying the premises at any one time to not exceed 150 persons. This would account for approximately two people per room, but cater for family rooms as well. This number has been derived from the view that generally a hotel bedroom will include either a double bed or twin beds that will provide sleeping accommodation for two people, but also that in some instances pull out beds are provided to cater for a child or children. REPORT NO 7 PAGE 15
Page 1 and 2: Public Document Pack Regulatory Boa
Page 3 and 4: Page 1 Agenda Item 2 Regulatory Boa
Page 5 and 6: Page 3 Regulatory Board 27.05.2009
Page 13 and 14: Page 11 Agenda Item 5a 125 Applicat
Page 15 and 16: Page 13 • Pair of semi detached t
Page 17 and 18: Page 15 John Collins (David Hicken
Page 19 and 20: Page 17 Consultation expiry date: 2
Page 21 and 22: Lodge The TheBanks FarcombeHall 12.
Page 23 and 24: Page 21 GR/09/144 - Former Chequers
Page 25 and 26: Page 23 Agenda Item 5b 8 week date
Page 27 and 28: Page 25 He explained that ground le
Page 29 and 30: Page 27 Members looked at the plot
Page 31 and 32: 1 Page 29 6 lSubSta 45 48 301 56.7m
Page 33 and 34: Page 31 GR/09/192 - 307, Wrotham Ro
Page 35 and 36: Page 33 Agenda Item 5c 8 week date
Page 37 and 38: Page 35 4 th Floor 9no. rooms serve
Page 39 and 40: Page 37 6. Consultations and Public
Page 41 and 42: Page 39 Mr L F Ascott 134 Parrock S
Page 43 and 44: Page 41 G Humphrey Marco Manente Ma
Page 45 and 46: Page 43 Impact upon Upper Windmill
Page 47: Page 45 residents lounges it is lik
Page 51 and 52: Page 49 9. The rating level of the
Page 53 and 54: House CLARENCEROW SHEPPYPLACE Willi
Page 55 and 56: Page 53 Agenda Item 5d 8 week date
Page 57 and 58: Page 55 5. Reason for Report Previo
Page 61 and 62: Page 59 Agenda Item 5e 8 week date
Page 63 and 64: Page 61 4 th Floor 9no. rooms serve
Page 65 and 66: Page 63 or identified environmental
Page 67 and 68: Page 65 Commercial Refuse Arrangeme
Page 69 and 70: Page 67 David Bond Claire Grehan Mr
Page 71 and 72: Page 69 hostel then planning permis
Page 73 and 74: Page 71 amenity of the adjoining re
Page 75 and 76: Page 73 Buildings Regulations/Fire
Page 77 and 78: Page 75 9. The rating level of the
Page 81 and 82: Page 79 Agenda Item 5f 8/13 week da
Page 83 and 84: Page 81 (reference Ar.08/3) which c
Page 87 and 88: 29 45 12 3 ROYALPIERROAD 1to12 26 1
Page 89 and 90: GR/09/424 - 5, Clarendon Road, Grav
Page 91 and 92: Page 89 Agenda Item 5g 8 week date
Page 93 and 94: Page 91 which falls within the Boro
Page 97 and 98: Page 95
Page 99 and 100:
Page 97 GR/09/410 - Copperfield, Wr
show all

Public reports pack PDF 9 MB - Gravesham Borough Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?