11/3680/FUL and 11/3681/CAC - 9-19 PARADISE ROAD, RICHMOND (Henry Boot Developments Ltd.)
11/3680/FUL - Demolition of the existing building and the erection of part ground, part 3 storey development to provide a 78 bed hotel (2018.01 sqm), with cycle and refuse facilities.
Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL
11/3681/CAC - Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 78 bed hotel (2018.01 sqm).
Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL
Councillor Mathias was not present for this item.
Councillor Naylor declared that he had carried out a site visit to the application site.
The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following further correspondence (via the addendum):
23 further representations raising the following summarised objections to the proposal –
- Too large and bulky for the area, overdevelopment of site
- Question whether this is the correct location for a hotel of this size.
- Do not need any more hotels.
- Exacerbate existing parking problems in surrounding streets.
- Increase in traffic congestion.
- Adverse impact upon highway safety
- Ridiculous to expect all guests to arrive by public transport.
- Travelodge is designed for business people to arrive in the evening and leave early morning.
- Inadequate staff parking.
- Should be a dedicated area for deliveries. Local residents should not be expected to suffer delays and congestion for what is the responsibility of the hotel.
- Increase in noise and disturbance.
- Impact upon property prices
- Out of character within Conservation Area.
- Proposal is in close proximity to and overlooks the Grade II* listed Church - the two would create an unhappy juxtaposition.
- Architect’s impression of the building highlights how poor the design is and how faceless the building will look in reality.
- Endorse issues raised by Richmond Society
- Affordable flats a better solution
- Hotel with ground floor bedroom windows on the pavement line will need to protect residents from prying eyes and may need to use mirrored glass in the same way as the existing building – this would be unacceptable aesthetically.
- Agents have highlighted several Travelodges having no parking – the majority are in close proximity to mainline stations and are used by people who need to catch early morning trains and they have no need for on-site parking.
Email received from Richmond Residents’ Group enclosing a document showing a fire engine being unable to get past parked cars going down Halford Road on 5th Feb, a delivery van stuck going up Halford Road on 12th Feb and enclosing an extract from the architect’s drawing showing close proximity between Hotel Guests and pedestrians in the street.
The Development Control Officer reported the following amendments to the report (via the addendum):
· Number of representations as stated in report to read 194.
· With reference to paragraph 56, the contribution sought in this case would amount to £ 3,465 which would contribute towards the upgrading of the footpath in the vicinity of the site. However, in the absence of a signed legal agreement to this effect a further reason for refusal is necessary –
Reason for refusal: Without an appropriate contribution towards public realm improvements within the vicinity of the application site, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the adopted Planning Obligations Strategy June 2005 and Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy 2009.
· In ‘Summary of Applications’ and ‘Conclusion’ (para 59) under 11/3680/FUL add ‘siting’ after ‘its’ in the first sentence.
The Committee heard representations against the applications from Mr Robinson, Mr Messum and Mr Godfrey, who were nearby residents; and from Mr McSweeney, a representative of a residents association.
The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Stallon, the agent, and from Mr Scofield, the applicant.
The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Fleming who spoke as an interested Councillor.
The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. Members discussed the design of the application and considered this in the context of the conservation area, listed buildings and nearby buildings of townscape merit. It was felt that the design was unacceptable within the street scene and did not enhance the conservation area, particularly the Halford Road elevation. Members also discussed the proposed location of the linen store and access point: this was viewed as being an unsuitable location as it would be likely to result in servicing from Halford Road, which was not deemed appropriate for this residential road, and could impact on surrounding residential amenities.
Whilst the Committee did not raise an objection with respect to the building’s relationship with the properties to the rear (in terms of visual impact, privacy, light or noise), the Committee was concerned about the effect of the application on the visual amenity of residents on Halford Road in response to its unacceptable design on this elevation.
The Committee discussed the servicing of the proposed hotel and whether this would cause traffic problems on Paradise Road. It was noted that the Transport Officer had not raised concern about this proposal: it was not considered to represent more harm than the current B1 use and the number of deliveries was not expected to exceed nine per week.
The Committee was mindful of local residents’ concerns about parking in relation to the application. However, it was recognised that this would not be a sustainable reason to refuse the application in light of the nearby Controlled Parking Zone, the high level of public transport available in this area, and that fact that the Council’s Transport Officer had raised no objection in relation to parking. It was also noted that if the application were to be granted permission, it would have been possible to require that the applicants submit a comprehensive travel plan.
The Committee discussed flooding: it was noted that the Environment Agency had not raised an objection on these grounds, nor had an Inspector in an earlier decision.
It was RESOLVED:
1. That application 11/3680/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal by reason of its siting, form, inadequate design and access ramp would result in a visually intrusive and inappropriate form of development which fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area, the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings, the adjoining and surrounding Buildings of Townscape Merit; and the visual amenities of the surrounding properties. The position of the linen store would be likely to be harmful to the general residential amenities of nearby occupiers. It would thereby be contrary to policies DM HD1, DM HD2, DM HD3, DM DC1 and DM DC5 of the Adopted Development Management Plan and Core Strategy Policy CP7.
(ii) Without an appropriate contribution towards public realm improvements within the vicinity of the application site, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the adopted Planning Obligations Strategy June 2005 and Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy 2009.
2. That application 11/3681/CAC be REFUSED for the following reason:
Although the existing building does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, in the absence of an acceptable replacement, its demolition would result in an unsightly gap in the streetscene and thereby fails to preserve or enhance the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area. The development is thereby contrary to policies CP7 of the Core Strategy, policies DM HD1 and DM DC1 of the Adopted Development Management Plan, and PPS5 'Planning for the historic environment'.