Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent and Tom Payne, the applicant. Mr Payne explained that he has owned the Bramley House Hotel for the last three and a half years and over this time he has learnt what is needed in the area is a high standard of accommodation whilst offering food and drink in a calm and relaxed setting. He added that most of his bookings come from local businesses who use the hotel for their staff who have travelled from other locations in the country or abroad.

Mr Payne explained that the companies who use the premises include Stainless Metalcraft, Aerotron, Taylor Made, ALS and Cromwell School along with many businesses working in the area who are working on renewable energy and the reservoir project which brings with it a great demand for accommodation. He explained that many of his guests include visitors for family events as well as corporate events, afternoon tea and evening meals and many of his staff which he employs are local people.

Mr Payne made the point that the extension of Bramley House will make it a viable business for many years to come which will create more jobs and he will use local trades for the building works which will cost in excess of £400,000 and he will use local supplies where possible. He added that he is currently turning away business on a regular basis.

Matthew Hall stated that the key point to the application is Policy LP6 of the Local Plan which welcomes new accommodation and hotels and, in his view, the proposal fits in with the broad location for growth with Chatteris being one of the four market towns and the site is in Flood Zone 1. He referred to 9.14 of the officer’s report which states that there would not be any significant overshadowing as there is a car park to the north and at 9.15 it states that there would be no overlooking issues to address and the principle of development at this location has been accepted by the Planning Officer.

Mr Hall made the point that the proposal will allow for ground floor rooms to be offered with access off of the car park for any persons with disability as the existing building has a number of steps. He stated that there have been no objections from the properties in the adjacent Boadicea Court and he added that he has spoken to the Town Clerk at Chatteris Town Council who has advised him that there is unanimous support from the Town Council for the application.

Mr Hall made the point that the site is located in the centre of the market town of Chatteris and there are good transport links to the adjacent village, towns and cities. He stated that the present time there is on-site parking, and the proposal looks to retain a similar amount of parking and many business guests do car share.

Mr Hall explained that there are double yellow lines all along Boadicea Court and, therefore, there can be no further parking there and that is also the case in King Edward Road. He added that in the High Street there is time limited parking but the car park in Church Lane Car Park has 15 spaces and Furrowfields Car Park has 113 car parking spaces, and they are both public car parks and are accessed by footpaths.

Mr Hall made the point that he has stayed in many hotels which do not have car parking on site, but the application is keeping parking on site, and it is an application to expand an existing business which will allow for additional persons to be employed in both a full and part time capacity. He made the point that Fenland is open for business and the application will allow an  established business the opportunity to expand.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Payne if he could clarify how far is the additional footprint of the development is from Chatteris House? Mr Payne stated that he has not measured it, but he would think it was approximately 20 plus metres. Councillor Imafidon stated that when he visited the site, he saw the outbuilding which is proposed to be demolished and he asked how much space would be created by that outbuilding being removed for additional car parking. Mr Payne stated that it would create four more car parking spaces.

·         Councillor Benney asked Mr Payne to confirm how much his business is being restricted by not having enough rooms as he is aware that the demand for hotel accommodation in the area is increasing. Mr Payne expressed the opinion there is a very high demand, and he would expect the hotel to be at full capacity on a regular basis even when extended. He added that if people are looking for a two week stay, they cannot find accommodation for that length of time as far out as Cambridge.

·         Councillor Hicks stated that the building which is going to be demolished is only going to be replaced by something else which is going to be of a same size with a small addition. Mr Payne explained that the replacement will only be for a similar size footprint, and it does look to take away some garden space which he does not use, with the proposed building taking up an area which is not used at the current time.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there are windows to the rear of the property which look out to Chatteris House? Mr Hall explained that the proposed property is at 90 degrees to Chatteris House and there are no first-floor windows but there are some roof lights on the back of the property which are not at first floor height, and you cannot physically see the windows at Chatteris House. He added that in the officer’s report at 9.15 it states that there are no overlooking issues to address.

·         Councillor Marks asked whether there are going to be electric charging points for vehicles in the car park? Mr Payne explained that is on his list of things to do.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that at the rear of the property there is a 2 bedroomed annex and she asked how long it has been there as it seems very out of place. Mr Payne stated that this is the building which is going to be demolished and it is a very old building, but he does not know how old it actually is. He explained that some guests like it as the access is straight out into the open air, but they are the guest rooms that he chooses to allocate on a less frequent basis. Mr Payne confirmed that it is not a Listed Building.

·         Councillor Benney stated that when he undertook the site visit, he was surprised to find that there were only 2 cars in the car park, and he had expected it to be full. He asked Mr Payne whether any of his guests come via public transport as opposed to using a car? Mr Payne explained that some guests come via public transport and others leave their vehicles at their place of work.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked Mr Payne what the occupancy levels are for the hotel? Mr Payne stated that throughout the Summer the occupancy level is 70% and 50% throughout the Winter. He explained that there are not many guests who stay on a Sunday night as guests tend to stay on a Monday to Thursday or a Friday and Saturday night and if he is fully booked on a Friday and Saturday night and empty on a Sunday for that period of time it is only 66% and the extra accommodation will deal with instances where a guest wants a two week booking.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what the proximity of the proposed development to Chatteris House is and asked why it was raised as a concern? David Rowen explained that from the corner of Chatteris House to the corner of the development is 7.5 metres and the professional view of the Conservation Officer is that the scale and the design of the proposed building is not sympathetic to a Grade 2 Listed Building such as Chatteris House and the Council has to pay special regard to preserving the setting of a Listed Building. He added that the site is within the Conservation Area and Bramley House is a significant building in the Conservation Area and the scale and design is not considered in the professional view of officers to be sympathetic to the heritage setting.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what Chatteris House is used for at the current time? David Rowen stated that he did not know what it is used for and added that its use was also irrelevant to its consideration of the impact on its setting of a further development.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the presentation screen and the slide which showed the proposed street scene. He expressed the opinion that it is a very stark full-on photograph and made the point that Bramley House stands on the corner and you cannot actually see most of the development and he asked whether the Conservation Officer is expressing his opinion due to the impact on the street scene or because it is a modern building beside an older building. David Rowen stated that the Conservation Officer has made very detailed comments in the officer’s report and the building is considered too large for its position especially in such close proximity and its form is also architecturally inconsistent with the host Bramley House and the Listed Chatteris House. He added that the Conservation Officer also states that it would appear that the proposal has been dictated to provide a certain level of floor space resulting in an oversized building which fails to pick up on the essential character of the site including the characteristic hip roofs, dormers are shown to be cladded in timer shiplap which is an incongruous material and is inappropriate.

·         Councillor Marks stated that when you take everything into consideration most of it will not be seen because it stands back and whilst he understands that from Chatteris House the view maybe different, he questioned whether the Conservation Officer has looked at the proposal site at an angle where there are properties around it so that it blends in rather than one of a stark drawing. David Rowen explained that the Conservation Officer will have undertaken a robust consideration of all of the submitted drawings and will have also undertaken a site visit and his comprehensive comments will be made on the basis of a thorough consideration of the scheme.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Benney stated that he is a Chatteris Councillor and a resident so he is aware of the intentions of Mr Payne, with, in his view, the actions of Mr Payne should be commended and to take on a £400,000 expansion project in a business within a sector that is failing should be applauded. He stated that the criticisms that are within the officer’s report are subjective and it is for the committee to make a decision. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the building is for a purposeful use and the extension is for a hotel where there is a need for the expansion, and he fully supports the application. He added that the stark drawing does not give the application justice for what is going to be delivered by the time it is finished and whilst it is in a Conservation Area the extension will be to the rear and, in his view, acceptable. Councillor Benney stated that with regards to the Local Plan Policy LP16, does it make a positive contribution, in his opinion, it absolutely does, and it is a positive development. He expressed the opinion that there has been other development undertaken in the High Street with new buildings in the rear close to the church which is a Grade 1 Listed Building, and they were approved, along with Boxing Boy Mews which was built in 2006 or 2007 and originally that used to be a row of garages and the development enhances the Grade 1 setting. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that the proposal fits in and with regards to the point made concerning insufficient parking, if the proposal site was within London, then there would be no parking. He added that as long as Mr Payne advises his customers to use the town centre car parks in order for the High Street shoppers to still be able to support the local shops and park on the High Street then, in his view, the scheme deserves the full support of the Council, and he sees nothing detrimental with the proposal at all.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that if the application was for a block of flats then the parking policy is that, as it is a town centre location, there is no requirement for any parking spaces.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that when there is a Listed Building to be taken into consideration when determining an application, it would be helpful to have the officer present at the meeting. He expressed the view that he thinks that the development should be commended as he also works in that type of industry, and he also has a site similar to the application site and is aware of the struggles that can be experienced. Councillor Imafidon added that one point that Mr Payne made which resonates with him was with regards to access issues for guests with a disability that wish to stay and if there are accessible rooms then it does attract more bookings. He expressed the opinion that the application should be fully supported, and he does not feel that a Listed Building which has been converted into flats should now have an impact on a business when Fenland is stating that it is open for business so the application should be supported, and the applicant should be commended for his investment.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he agrees with the comments made and he added that when he has had conversations with other businesses in the area who are trying to find accommodation for their staff there is a lack of beds available in Chatteris. In his opinion, the proposal looks better than a Travelodge on the edge of town and the application should be supported.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that in special circumstances it states that nil parking maybe appropriate.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Hicks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that a number of the reasons listed for refusal are subjective and the benefits that the application will bring to the town and to the area are beneficial and outweigh any harm.

(Councillor Benney declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows Mr Payne but has no business dealings with him and is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Marks declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning matters, that he is a District Councillor for the Chatteris and Manea Ward and does attend meetings of Chatteris Town Council but does not take part in planning)

(Councillor Marks declared that he knows Mr Payne but is not pre-determined and will consider the application with an open mind)