Decision:
Approved
Minutes:
The application before Members was for the conversion and extension of a vacant nightclub to an aparthotel (C1 use), including extension of the existing mezzanine floor, the erection of a new second floor and a roof extension to create a total of fifty four bedrooms.
The Committee had deferred consideration of the application at its meeting on 30 July 2015 to allow staff to invite the applicant to:
a) Revise the scheme to reduce the bulk and impact of the extensions, their effect on the setting and appearance of the building thereby its contribution to the town centre, including its prominence as a heritage asset.
b) To seek more information on the nature of the proposed “aparthotel” use.
In response to the deferment the applicant had revised the proposals to reduce the bulk of the extensions and to provide internal refuse storage space. The additional storey was no longer proposed and the rooms would now be spread across four floors - ground floor, extended mezzanine, first floor and roof conversion. The roof would be extended on the northern side to provide the additional rooms as previously proposed, but this would not be readily visible from the highway and would not materially affect the overall character and appearance of the building. The number of rooms would be reduced from 54 to 42 and the overall floorspace reduced by 486 square metres.
The deferral had also been to enable staff to seek more information on the nature of the proposed 'apart-hotel' use. Apart-hotel was not currently defined in planning legislation but an earlier circular placed it in C1 use class (hotels) which also included boarding and guest houses, but excluded hostels. The London Plan defined apart-hotels as 'self-contained hotel accommodation for short-term occupancy at a nightly rate' It would normally include concierge and room service, and there would also be formal procedures for checking in and out. The London Plan also suggested that the length of stay may have needed to be limited by condition. In this case conditions were recommended to ensure that the length of stay was limited to ninety days and that details of occupation were recorded. These conditions were based on some used in appeal decisions.
Members noted that the application had previously been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson due to the impact of the increased building height on the design of the building and its historic interest. There was also concern that the proposals were deficient in terms of the collection of waste and laundry facilities. Following revisions to the application that had addressed his original concerns Councillor Thompson had not made any further objections to the application.
During a brief debate Members discussed the possible enforcement of the condition that restricted use to no more than a ninety continuous day period.
Officers advised that the Council’s enforcement officers would need grounds to investigate before a planning contravention could be issued for non-compliance with the condition.
Members also discussed the possible benefits to the community of filling a vacant building and possible increased use the proposal could achieve once Crossrail was operating.
Members noted that the amended proposed development qualified for a Mayoral CIL contribution of £11,120 and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.
Councillor Whitney abstained from voting.