Agenda item

Proposal:	Permanent use of hostel (Use Class Sui Generis) as a hotel (Use Class C1)
Location:	The Lodge at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road, Greenham
Applicant:	Newbury Racecourse
Recommendation:	The Head of Development & Planning be authorised to GRANT conditional planning permission subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement

 

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 by virtue of the fact that Councillors Abbs was the Chair of Greenham Parish Council, and lived near the Racecourse; Councillor Barnett was a member of Greenham Parish Council and Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee; Councillor Beck was a member of Newbury Town Council Planning and Highways Committee and Councillor Vickers had previously been a Chair and member of the Greenham Parish Council. They had also been lobbied. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 19/00225/COMIND in respect of the erection of a three storey extension to the front elevation of The Lodge to provide additional rooms at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ken Neal, Parish Council representative, Mr Raymond Beard, objector, and Mr Julian Thick and Ms Catherine Tyrer, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

3.     Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended that the Committee grant planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement or similar measures to secure that the extant permission for a 123 bedroom hotel was not developed.

4.     Mr Paul Goddard noted that the 2009 planning application traffic assessment had included a 123 bed hotel. This proposal was for a 76 bed hotel. He therefore had no concern regarding the volume of traffic. A parking survey had been submitted, and on non-race days there was a surplus of parking spaces, but on race-days there might be cause for concern. However if the race-goers and stable staff were staying on-site, then this would be acceptable.

5.     Mr Neal in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           Greenham Parish Council (GPC) objected strongly to the proposal. The Racecourse have been unable to address the noise problem and he suggested that this application was premature, as the company needed to show they could control the amount of noise produced by their customers.

·           The extension, although further away from the Nursery, would be directly overlooking it, rather than at an angle. The use of the recreation area, would cause further problems.

6.     Councillor Tony Vickers suggested that the time the children attended the Nursery would not coincide with when The Lodge would be in use. Mr Neal explained that the extension would enable the Racecourse to cater for conferences during the day and for race days.

7.     Mr Beard in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           He expressed the view that the application was premature, as the controls used by the Racecourse to mitigate the noise had not proven effective.

·           The consultation in October 2018 gave residents the chance to comment on the layout, however no changes had been made to the plans at all to reflect the wishes of the neighbours.

·           The bedrooms were small, as were the kitchen and dining area. It was therefore inevitable that customers would spill out into the entertainment areas. The bar was licensed to 2am and consequently there would be outside, late night activity.

·           As the hotel was the centre of the development, there should be a sequential assessment, including the increase in the number of rooms.

·           Vehicular access via Stroud Green would encourage people to take the shorter route, rather than using the new bridge. Taxis were already using this route and parking in the children’s parking area to drop off/pick up fares.

·           Residents near the over-flow car park had raised concerns that taxis were using the noisy gravel car parks to the east of Chatham House.

·           The intention was that taxis would use car park 2. He asked that some prohibition be put in place to enforce this.

(At 9.50pm, the Chairman raised the need to defer the last two applications to a later meeting, and that under Rule 7.6.2, this meeting should be allowed to continue to 10.30pm to allow for the conclusion of the discussion and a decision to be taken on this application. Councillor Hilary Cole proposed the motion, which was seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck and agreed by the Committee)

8.     Ms Catherine Tyrer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The extension would be located to the north of the car park and therefore not visible to existing residents.

·           The extra space would enable the Racecourse to host mid-sized conferences and events. The application included a noise management condition.

·           The proposed extension was 50 meters from the Nursery and would have no adverse impact. The general rule of thumb was 21 meters.

·           Newbury Racecourse was a premier sporting venue and this extension would enable it to continue to be financially viable.

9.     Mr Julian Thick in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The hotel in the original plan would have required an investment of £20 million. The housing development on site had given the Racecourse £42.6 million, and they had chosen to invest this in the racing infrastructure of the site, rather than gamble it on a hotel enterprise.

·           This proposal was a very effective way of providing a hotel on the site. The Lodge currently provided a vibrant public are, where residents had access to discounted facilities and events.

·           People using the Nursery were encourage to use the café.

·           The applicant was happy to increase the number of trees planted, if that was what was needed.

10.  Councillor Cole noted that in the previous presentation, Ms Tyrer had stated that The Lodge was at 80% occupancy. She wondered whether this was because the hotel was too small, and what the anticipated occupancy rate would be. Mr Thick projected that in two years the occupancy rate would be 75%-80%. Councillor Cole further enquired if rooms would still be block-booked for stable staff. Mr Thick confirmed that this practice would continue.

11.  Councillor Claire Rowles noted that 16 parking spaces would be lost to the extension, and asked how the increase in vehicles on race days would be managed with fewer spaces available. Mr Thick explained that there was a professional parking management team on site on race days, and it was not a problem.

12.  Mr Thick further commented that bedrooms were priced higher on race days as people wanted the privilege of being close to the horses and riders. He was therefore confident that guests would be staying on site to enjoy the atmosphere.

13.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked if there was a solution to Mr Beard’s concern over taxi drivers using the short route via Stroud Green. Mr Thick explained that the Racecourse could point out a preferred route, but the reality was that the taxis are on public roads and there was no legislation that could control this behaviour.

14.  Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Barnett raised the following points:

·           Councillor Phil Barnett had hoped that the courtyard would be left open, but he could see the logic of having the hotel in a central location as it would be more attractive to race-goers.

·           Members of GPC objected to the proposal as they were keen to see the original plan taken forward.

·           He acknowledged the logic, but concluded that it was not going to have a good effect on the quality of life of the residents.

15.  Councillor Vickers asked Paul Goddard to comment on the concerns with taxis. Paul Goddard concurred that the applicant could encourage drivers to take the preferred route, but he felt that the numbers were so small that it was not a problem and it had to be accepted that some taxis would take the shorter route.

16.  Councillor Adrian Abbs asked if the report contained information on the carbon offset, as he was unable to find it. Simon Till explained that the extension would comply with the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) Excellent Standard, which required a high standard of construction and energy efficiency.

17.  Councillor Rowles asked for confirmation that there would be electric vehicle charging points and cycle storage, which was given by Simon Till.

18.  Councillor Beck was very happy to propose to accept officers recommendation grant planning permission, in the interest of the Racecourse development and its part in the economy of West Berkshire. Any potential disadvantages were outweighed by the advantages.

19.  Councillor Abbs opined that this was a missed opportunity and that residents’ views had not been taken into account. There had been a second chance to move the outdoor seating area which had been lost. The increase in noise that residents would have to suffer from having people in the hotel for 365 days a year had now been doubled.

20.  Councillor Cole seconded Councillor Beck’s proposal.

21.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Cole, to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below and to an acceptable section 106 legal agreement or other means of securing that the 123 bedroom hotel consent is not constructed being agreed by officers, or that in the event that an agreement was not reached that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

“The application is not accompanied by sufficient information or a sequential test to demonstrate that it would result in provision of hotel accommodation (a town centre use) in an appropriate location and at a justified amount. Furthermore, due to the extant consent for a 123 bedroom hotel on the racecourse site the proposed works would result in an over-provision of hotel accommodation in this location without justification of local need. The proposed works are therefore contrary to the requirements of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CS9 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012, requiring that proposals for new business development should not conflict with existing uses.”

Conditions:

1.  Three years for commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004); to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2.  Approved drawings

The development hereby approved shall take place in accordance with the following approved drawings:

SK20, SK23, SK27, SK28, SK29, SK30, SK33, SK34, SK35, SK36, SK37.

Reason:  For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.  Materials

The external materials to be used in the approved extensions shall match those used in the existing lodge and shown on the approved drawings.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

4.  Construction management plan

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  The statement shall provide for:

a)    The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

b)    Loading and unloading of plant and materials

c)    Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

d)    The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing (if any)

e)    Wheel washing facilities

f)     A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

g)    HGV haul routes

h)   the control of noise

i)     the control of dust, smell and other effluvia;

j)      the proposed method of piling for foundations (if any);

k)    hours during the construction when delivery vehicles, or vehicles taking materials, are permitted  to enter or leave the site

Reason:  To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies OVS6 and TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

5.  Parking in accordance with drawings

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. The parking area shall thereafter be retained and kept available for the parking of motor vehicles.

Reason:  In order to ensure that the site is provided with sufficient parking in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS!3 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

6.  Cycle storage

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of motorcycle parking and cycle storage to be provided on the site have been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. The development shall not be occupied until the motorcycle parking and cycle storage have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The motorcycle parking and cycle storage shall be retained and kept available for the parking of cycles and motorcycles thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure that the site is provided with sufficient storage for cycles and motorcycles to reduce reliance on the private motor car in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

7.  Electric vehicle charging points

The approved extensions shall not be occupied until details of electric vehicle charging points have been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. The electric charging points shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained for charging electric vehicles thereafter.

Reason:  In order to facilitate the increased use of electric vehicles in order to reduce reliance on other fuel sources and in order to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD (2017).

8.  BREEAM

The extension hereby approved shall not be taken into use until a post construction review demonstrating that the extension has achieved a BREEAM “Excellent” standard of construction has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application.

Reason:  In order to meet with the requirement for sustainable construction in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CS14 and CS15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

9.  Hours of construction work

No work relating to the development hereby approved, including works of preparation prior to building operations, shall take place other than between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or public holiday.

Reason:  To protect the occupiers of neighbouring properties from noise and disturbance outside the permitted hours during the construction period in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

10.         Noise from mechanical plant

The sound rating level (established in accordance with BS4142:2014) of any plant, machinery and equipment installed or operated in connection with this permission, shall not exceed, at any time, the prevailing background sound level at the nearest residential or noise sensitive property.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity of residential occupants and hotel guests in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

11.         Drainage/SuDS

No occupation of the building relating to this application shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

These details shall:

a)    Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and West Berkshire Council local standards, particularly the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018;

b)    Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels;

c)    Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

d)    Include run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

e)    Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil or groundwater;

f)     Include a SuDS management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.  This plan shall incorporate arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, management and maintenance by a residents’ management company or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime;

g)    the implications of any flooding, in particular any exceedance from the site, must be considered and evidence provided that this could be contained within land in the control of the applicant.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), The West Berkshire SuDS Supplementary Planning Document (2018), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).