Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council and their respective Planning and Highways Committees, which had discussed this application. 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.)

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 18/03340/COMIND in respect of Permanent use of hostel (Use Class Sui Generis) as a hotel (Use Class C1) at Newbury Racecourse, Racecourse Road.

2.     Mr Simon Till, Team Leader (Western Area Planning), 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 in planning terms and officers recommended that, providing a Section 106 legal agreement is completed within three months of the date of this committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard noted that the building had been used as a hotel, rather than a hostel, since the original planning application in 2016 was granted. He was not aware of any highways issues relating to its current use and had no objections to its continued use as a hotel. He noted the original application from 2009 made provision for a hotel with 123 bedrooms within the racecourse site, and subject to the constraint of 123 bedrooms being retained somewhere on the site, officers had no objection to the proposal.

Removal of speaking rights

4.     As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

5.     The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the remote meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

6.     In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from, Mr Raymond Beard, objector. Mr Beard attended the meeting.

7.     Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5741&Ver=4

Objector’s Submission

8.     The Clerk read out the representation. Members did not have any questions relating to the written submission.

Ward Member Representation

9.     Councillor Phil Barnett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         It was difficult for him to voice his total opinion on this application and the application in Agenda Item 4(4) due to repeated delays in determining the proposals and changes in circumstances over the last decade, since the first application was submitted.

·         Residents of Greenham Parish and Newbury Town had kept a close eye on the racecourse in recent years as applications had progressed and developments had been built.

·         Residents of these developments had become part and parcel of the local community, and had to endure considerable changes, and had their expectations dashed a considerable time after taking residency, when original planning conditions were changed.

·         A new hotel in the east of the site complex was agreed and expected to be built, with open space retained around the stable lads’ lodge, which was the replacement for the original hostel.

·         These proposals were outlined in the original application and were intended to formalise the temporary agreement two years ago, which was for a year-round operation, whereas the stable lad’s requirement would only be for up to 25 race days per year.

·         The proposal would have considerable impact on quality of life for local residents, particularly late in the evening and in the summer months when private functions would be the mainstay for the hotel. Also, he did not feel that residents would take up the offer to make use of the hotel facilities.

·         The hostel was a replacement for the original stable lads’ accommodation, which would not be fitted out to the same standard as expected by professionals. For example, he understood that the space in the rooms was very limited.

·         There had been several changes made that were not expected when the proposal was first put forward. Would the original site become defunct? Would there ever be a community facility, which was desperately needed?

Members’ Questions to the Ward Member

10.  Members did not have any questions for the Ward Member.

Members’ Questions to Officers

11.  Councillor Hilary Cole sought confirmation that this application related to a technical issue regarding a change to the Section 106 agreement, with a maximum of 123 hotel rooms to be provided across the whole site rather than in a separate hotel. Mr Till stated that the previously approved hotel would not be developed while the hostel was in use as a hotel, and the Committee was asked to consider whether limiting the number of hotel bedrooms would have the same impact as not providing hotel accommodation beyond what had already gained approval. As such, it was a technical consideration of how the Section 106 agreement would deliver on the previously agreed requirement.

12.  Councillor Hilary Cole indicated that it was self-evident that the 36 room hostel had accommodation was far superior to what would be expected for use by stable personnel. She sought confirmation that the proposal was to build 40 new rooms, increasing the total to 76 rooms, and if the Committee were to agree to 123 rooms over the site, a further 47 rooms could be built in future. Mr Till confirmed that Agenda Item 4(3) related to the change of use of the hostel, while Agenda Item 4(4) was for a 40 room extension and that the two applications together amounted to 76 rooms, leaving a balance of 47 rooms.

13.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked what would happen if the Committee were minded to refuse this application, apart from the fact that the subsequent agenda item did not need to be discussed as it was reliant on this application being approved. He suggested that the applicant might appeal or the application might be referred up to District Planning Committee as it was contrary to policy. He asked officers to confirm the consequences of a decision to refuse. Mr Till highlighted the fact that there were two suggestions in the officer’s report; one was that the changes to the legal agreement be accepted, and the other was that they be refused. He suggested that a further option would be for the resolution to revert to that made at the 2019 Committee meeting, whereby within three months, the legal agreement should secure that no development of the extant hotel permission were to take place, or that it was refused at that point.

14.  The Chairman asked if the Committee were to refuse the application, whether this would default to the third option outlined above. Mr Till stated that it would not, because the deadline in the previous resolution had expired.

15.  Councillor Hilary Cole sought confirmation that the current permission for the extension had lapsed. Mr Till stated that the current permission for the use of the lodge as a hotel had expired, and the current resolution for construction of the extension, and for the change of use of the Lodge had expired.

Debate

16.  Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate. She indicated that she was irritated by this application and the subsequent one, because this accommodation had originally been for stable hands and she understood residents’ concerns. However, she noted that there had been just two formal complaints about noise. She suggested that this was a “tidying up exercise” and the Committee had to decide whether to approve the new application or stick with the current use. She indicated that she would prefer the former, but was concerned about the outstanding balance of rooms.

17.  Councillor Hilary Cole proposed to accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission, providing that a Section 106 legal agreement was completed within three months of the date of this committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston.

18.  Councillor Vickers suggested, but did not formally propose that the Committee should refuse the application and revert to the previous agreement.

19.  Councillor Barnett agreed with Councillor Vickers and indicated that he would vote against the proposal from Councillor Hilary Cole.

20.  Councillor Andy Moore asked for clarification as to what would happen if the officer’s recommendation were to be rejected. Mr Till stated that if the proposal was carried, the Section 106 agreement would secure a maximum of 123 hotel bedrooms across the site. If the proposal was not approved, and if Councillor Vickers’ proposal were to come forward, then this would revert to the previous resolution to secure, via the Section 106 agreement, that the 123 bedroom hotel was not developed on the site. If this agreement could not be secured, then the application would be refused. If this proposal was not carried, then the final proposal would be to refuse the applications outright.

21.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, and seconded by Councillor Woollaston, to grant planning permission, providing that a Section 106 legal agreement is completed within three months of the date of this committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission, providing that a Section 106 legal agreement is completed within three months of the date of this committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), subject to the conditions below

OR, if a Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three months of the date of this committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Western Area Planning Committee), to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons listed below.

Conditions

1.    Vehicular Access

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.    External Lighting

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.    Noise Management Plan

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 guests 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 noise management plan shall also set out a timetable for the implementation of any works or other measures required and all works or other measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved timetable.

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.    Availability of café/bar to public

The café/bar area of The Lodge will be available for use by members of the general public for purchasing food and/or drink during normal opening hours (i.e. between the hours of 9am and 10.30pm), with the following exceptions:

-       when there is a private function, which has exclusive use of The Lodge; or

-       when the café/bar area is otherwise closed.

Unless an alternative arrangement is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the café/bar area remains available for general use by members of the public and community groups in accordance with the recommendations of the NPPF and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012, for new development to facilitate the provision of healthy, safe environments.

Heads of Terms for Section 106 Agreement

1.    Maximum number of hotel bedrooms on the site

The terms of the Section 106 agreement shall secure that no more than 123 hotel bedrooms are provided on the racecourse site.

Refusal Reason

1.    Planning obligation

The application fails to provide an appropriate planning obligation to prevent the overprovision of hotel bedrooms in a non-town centre location without adequate justification. 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.

Informatives

1.    Proactive

This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.