Agenda item

(Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 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.)

(The meeting reconvened at 8.35pm)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 18/03340/COMIND in respect of the permanent use of hostel (Use Class Sui Generis) as a hotel (Use Class C1) at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road.

2.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Ken Neal, Parish Council representative, Mr Raymond Beard, objector, and Ms Catherine Spenser 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 of similar measures to secure that an extant permission for a 123 bedroom hotel was not developed.

4.     Mr Paul Goddard that he was not aware of any parking or traffic issues and had not objections to the application.

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

·           Greenham Parish Council (GPC) had received representations from local residents and strongly objected to the proposal.

·           Residents adjacent to the site bought their properties on the understanding that it would be used as a hostel for stable staff.

·           If the temporary use as an hotel were made permanent, then residents would have to deal with noise for most of the year.

·           The proximity of the buildings might be up to statutory standards, but sound echoed and reverberated between them.

·           The recreation area was 25 meters from the Nursery. This business was owned by the Racecourse and therefore would not be objecting to the proposal.

·           He challenged the suitability of having a bar close to a Nursery and accommodation.

·           In conclusion, GPC objected to the proposal as there was a more suitable position for the hotel elsewhere on the site. The recreation area could have been positioned so that it would have had no adverse effect on neighbouring properties.

6.     Councillor Jeff Beck asked how many house-holders had approached GPC with their concerns. Mr Neal replied that it had been four or five and that they had moved in prior to the temporary change of use of the hostel.

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

·           He supported the Racecourse and didn’t have any issues with them.

·           His core objection was the impact of late night noise and how it disturbed residents. This had been a problem before 2016 and was now a regular feature, particularly when there were larger groups of people in the hostel.

·           Residents had made repeated complaints to the management and Environmental Health. Some residents had even shouted from their homes.

·           The acoustic test was not conducted externally.

·           The noise reverberated between the two buildings.

·           The social area faces the houses, but could be repositioned so it did not impact on residents.

·           When people exited the hotel they encroached closer to the residents homes.

·           The hotel was effectively a pub, and management controls used to abate the noise of customers had not been effective. He had been disturbed at midnight on Monday, until staff addressed the matter.

·           The hotel reception was away from this area of the building and therefore had no effective control over its customers.

·           The Racecourse had not liaised or consulted with neighbours on the change of use, only on the extension.

·           This was an unsatisfactory departure from a carefully worked out development, whereas the rest had been synched and phased. The hotel would be better placed elsewhere on the site, with the social area away from residents. This would also preserve the building for the community.

8.     Councillor Phil Barnett asked how many houses were close to the hotel. Mr Beard confirmed that there were 12 houses and 13 apartments; all of which had bedrooms overlooking The Lodge.

9.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked for clarification on his comments on the community use of the hostel. Mr Beard explained that there were community events, such as walks on the Racecourse and also at Christmas time.

10.  Councillor Barnett further inquired as to when the speaker moved into his property. Mr Beard confirmed that it was when The Lodge was still used purely by stable staff.

11.  Ms Tyrer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           The Lodge had originally been used for stable staff, but in practice the staff either travelled home or stayed in other accommodation on the site. This meant that the hostel was not being used to its full capacity.

·           If the Committee were minded to approve the application, she felt that the hotel would be beneficial to the local economy. It would allow the Racecourse to provide high quality accommodation to visitors on race days and throughout the year, whilst still providing a social space for the community to use, for example for the mother and baby group.

·           The residents concerns had been recognised and there was a condition recommended for a noise management plan, which the Racecourse was happy to comply with. They would ensure that The Lodge would not encroach on the amenity of the residents.

·           It was clear that there could be a number of issues with building houses next to a commercial venture, however it was generally thought that hotels were compatible with residential areas.

12.  Ms Spencer in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·           She had managed The Lodge for three years. She welcomed the local amenities provided in The Lodge, such as the café. Residents received discounted room rates and drinks and food in the café.

·           The Racecourse was seeking a permanent change of use to ensure commercial viability and to make best use, the whole year round, of the site.

·           The average occupancy rate was 80%, with the highest demand being from business people on week days. There was now insufficient on-site accommodation.

·           The Racecourse was more than compliant to the British Horseracing Authority’s (BHA) requirement for stable staff accommodation to be provided during the day and overnight.

13.  Councillor Hilary Cole remembered being on the site visit for the original application for changing the use of The Lodge from hostel to hotel. She wondered where the alternative accommodation for the stable staff was sited.

14.  Ms Spencer confirmed that there had always been eight beds in the stable yard. Some staff preferred these as they were closer to the horses. Councillor Cole challenged why, if the amount of space was adequate, was the use of the hostel changed. Ms Spencer noted that eight rooms alone was not adequate. Ms Tyrer asked that Members looked at this proposal on its own merits.

15.  Councillor Vickers reflected that he was not aware of the community use of the café and was impressed that it was in place. He wondered if the Racecourse would be prepared to accept a condition so that this would continue in a defined way. Ms Spenser replied that it was a mutually beneficial arrangement. Ms Tyrer commented that the current situation was working successfully and was not sure that it would need to be conditioned.

16.  Councillor Adrian Abbs inquired whether the noise evaluation had been based on the existing environment or included the extension proposed in the following application. Ms Tyrer asserted that the extension was included.

17.  Councillor Beck remarked that he was aware that over the years there had been a number of noise complaints and that the noise levels had not been as good as they should be. He believed that residents had contacted the Racecourse rather than alerting Environmental Health. He asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that the Racecourse could assure Members that they would adhere to the management plan and that the noise problem would not be a constant battle for residents.

18.  Ms Tyrer observed that The Lodge currently had no noise management plan in place, but that it would be a requirement for the hotel and that the council could enforce against it. The Lodge had self-imposed a curfew of 10pm, had put obscure film on the windows and had increased planting to reduce overlooking.

19.  Councillor Clive Hooker wondered what priority was given to the stable staff. Ms Spencer explained that stable staff were always given priority over other guests. She would know well in advance how many rooms were needed for race days. Councillor Abbs asked Ms Spencer to explain the process. She answered that a block booking would be made and only when it became apparent that the rooms would not be needed would they be made available to the public.

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

·           Unfortunately, the situation was very different from the original plan for the development. The stable staff’s accommodation was now a fully-fledged hotel, especially when considered alongside the next application for an extension.

·           The committee had heard that The Lodge was at 80% capacity, but there was a considerable amount of extra beds available in Newbury, and he wondered whether there was a need for more or if this was an extra revenue stream for the Racecourse.

·           The Members had heard from Mr Neal and Mr Beard how the quality of life of surrounding residents might be affected by the evening customers. Residents should expect to be able to open their doors and windows at night and not hear loud conversations.

·           If this application was approved, he would expect proper controls to be put in place, with a stringent condition imposed on noise and the number of people who could access the social area.

21.  Councillor Abbs asked if there were any physical sound barriers, or plans to erect any, to mitigate the noise. Simon Till noted that no physical barriers were included within the planning application or envisioned in the noise management plan. Councillor Abbs observed that the line of travel for sound was unimpeded from The Lodge to the residents. Simon Till commented that it was, apart from some hedging.

22.  Councillor Beck asked for clarification that if the application were approved, could a condition be applied to prevent the building out of the 123 bed hotel with extant permission, in perpetuity. Simon Till explained that the proposal before the Committee would secure a section 106 legal agreement to prevent development of the 123 bedroom hotel with extant permission on the Racecourse site. If another proposal was put forward for another hotel on the site, then this would be considered as normal. Sharon Armour added that a subsequent application could vary such a legal agreement, but would be subject to its own particular set of considerations.

23.  Councillor Howard Woollaston asked officers to indicate on the presentation where the social area was. He further enquired if the existing hotel plan had been given approval. Simon Till confirmed that there was an extant permission for the 123 bedroom hotel scheme and indicated that this hotel had permission to be developed close to Challow House, at a distance of 25 meters from its western elevation.

24.  Councillor Abbs noted that if the social area had been placed alongside the bar, facing the racecourse, it would have had less impact on residents. Simon Till explained that there were similarly uninterrupted paths for noise to travel from this area to nearby residential apartments to the east, and also noted that there was no noise management strategy for the extant hotel permission.

25.  Councillor Beck observed that he had lived through the development of the Racecourse site and The Lodge. Ms Spencer had mentioned that the community used the café and he had seen painting classes taking place. He accepted that there had been problems, but was hopeful that the conditions placed on the permission would mitigate them. He encouraged residents to not be shy and to contact Environmental Health officers if they were disturbed. He proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers.

26.  Councillor Vickers contemplated that he had had his concerns when he was a member of GPC, however he had since revised his view. He was pleased to hear about the use of the facility by the community and looked forward to growth in this area. West Berkshire residents had urged him to deal with the Racecourse more firmly, and he asked that a condition be applied that kept the facility open for community use and not just for visitors. Environmental Health officers would be able to enforce the noise management plan.

27.  Councillor Cole supported the recommendation but noted that it was another example of an application being submitted for one use and then subsequently being changed. On the original site visit Members were told that the yard accommodation would be demolished when the hostel was built. She believed it was self-evident from the luxurious nature of the hostel fittings that this was intended to be a hotel all along. However, she was aware that it would contribute to the local economy.

28.  Derek Carnegie agreed that officers would draft an additional condition around community use in discussion with Councillor Vickers.

29.  Councillor Abbs expressed concern as he was unconvinced with the noise mitigation. He felt that the outdoor seating area could easily have been moved and that not enough had been done to take account of resident’s needs.

30.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Vickers, to accept 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 following 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.     All vehicular access to the hostel/hotel shall be via the east from the new racecourse bridge as shown on location plan drawing reference 4385 SK20.  At no time shall any traffic, including deliveries, be directed to arrive or leave via the western access through Stroud Green.

Reason: To ensure the amenity of residents in the western area are respected having regard to traffic movements in accord with policy CS14 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

2.     The external lighting to the hotel shall be switched off no later than 11pm daily and shall not be operated before 7am.

Reason: In the interests amenity of preserving the amenity of adjacent residential occupants in accord with policy CS14 in the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006 to 2026) 2012.

3.     Within 1 month of the date of this decision a noise management plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority, for written approval, that sets out how noise from the following sources will be controlled to protect residents living close to the site from noise and disturbance:

·         Noise from guest and other users of the hotel

·         Noise from people using the outside seating area to the west of the restaurant bar

·         Noise from service vehicles and delivery operations

The measures identified in the approved noise management plan shall be implemented and maintained upon approval of those details and thereafter.

Reason: To protect residential amenity in accordance with the requirements of 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.

4.     Condition regarding community use of facilities in hostel to be confirmed following discussions between agent and officers