Meeting documents

Proposal: Change of use of dwelling from C3 (dwelling) to mix of C3 and C1 (short stay letting accommodation).

The Development Manager introduced the application as detailed in the agenda and highlighted that some members would be aware of the site and situation as similar applications were considered a few years ago. He advised the key issue was whether the change of use was considered to be acceptable. It was noted many letters had been received raising a number of issues. Whilst the issues were acknowledged and appreciated, it was a subjective view, and in planning terms difficult to recommend refusal.

Members were addressed by Ms C Roden, Ms C Edwards and Mr R Roden in objection to the application. Their comments included:

·         Barton Close is a small cul-de-sac of houses suitable for families but the Hollies now owned many of them, creating a sterile environment.

·         There was now a constant stream of strangers.

·         So many houses now used by hotel that the original planning application for houses had been totally undermined.

·         Only six houses left not owned by the hotel.

·         Query if the original site application had been for a hotel, rather than housing, if it would have been approved.

·         When is enough enough?

·         There is no local economical benefit to this application.

·         Residents have a stake in the area in which they live and contribute to the community both economically and socially.

·         If rate of hotel expansion continues the whole close will be lost as residential.

Mr R Walsh, applicant, clarified that Barton Close had 18 houses but only 17 of those were new builds. He explained that of the houses owned by the hotel, 85% of use of the buildings was class C3 that did not require planning permission, and 15% of use fell into C1 use. They were seeking permission for the mixed used to give flexibility. In context as a percentage, there would be about 1.5 properties in C1 use. He noted many of the points raised in objection were subjective and conjecture. He noted that no Environmental Health or Police complaints had been received in relation to the site and any issues that arose were dealt with by the hotel.

Ward member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, noted that Barton Close was attractive development but was soleless and lacked community feel. He made reference to national statistics about local and visitor spending and queried if we would have built a hotel on the site. He commented it was a good hotel but swallowing up needed housing. He felt enough of the dwellings had been granted a change of use and did not support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, commented that he felt this application was retrospective. He noted there was no atmosphere at Barton Close, and felt there was enough mixed use already and that what was left of the community needed to re-establish itself. He acknowledged there was some disturbance to residents, and he found it difficult to support the application.

During the general discussion members raised several comments including:

·         It’s a difficult and sad situation.

·         Share concern and opinion of residents, feel will be blighting existing domestic dwellings.

·         Cannot support - but for reasons that won’t stand up in planning terms.

·         People in the past have been happy to sell their property to the hotel, could happen again, and we cannot determine who will sell what to who.

·         Loss of homes for local people

·         Discussing one house now, but previously 10.

·         There has to be a tipping point when enough is enough.

·         Its detrimental to residential amenity

In response to comments made, the Development Manager clarified:

·         that the Council could control use but not ownership.

·         No law about businesses buying properties

·         Can control impact with change of use

·         If minded to refuse, a clear reason was need as to why or the detriment that would be caused.

·         Properties not considered to be affordable homes, but might be considered at lower end of the market.

At the conclusion of debate the officer recommendation to approve permission was proposed and seconded, and, on being put to the vote, and equal vote was recorded. The Chairman used his casting vote in favour of granting permission. (Voting: 6 in favour, 6 against with the Chairman’s casting vote in favour).

(Voting: 6 in favour, 6 against, with the Chairman’s casting vote in favour)