Agenda item

Person to contact:  Development Services Group Manager, 01452 396781

Members considered an application from Brickjet Limited for a change of use (temporary 1 year period) of apartments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 14 from use Class C3 to use Class C1 (apart hotel) at The Judges Lodgings, 29 Spa Road.  The Committee noted that this was a revised application following refusal of planning permission on 5^th October 2011 for a temporary change of use from Class C3 to Class C1.

The Acting Development Control Manager explained that the current application sought to reduce the number of units subject to the change of use proposals.  These units were to be contained within the left hand/west side of the building with segregation being achieved by building works.  Members were advised that reference to ‘stag and hen parties’ had been removed from the internet.

The application had been referred to the Committee because of the sensitivity of the issues and the local interest in the scheme.

Members noted that whilst the Development Control Manager recommended approval of the application subject to various conditions, that the City Council’s Environmental Protection Services Manager advocated refusal of it on noise and anti-social behaviour grounds.

The Acting Development Control Manager asked Members if, following a debate on this revised proposal, they might wish to defer the matter to allow the applicant to submit a management plan showing how guests would be booked in and supervised.

Mr David Jones representing Brickjet addressed the Committee in support of the application. Mr. Jones indicated that his client would be willing to provide this information. 

Mrs Geraldine Gregory-Davies addressed the Committee

Mrs Gregory-Davies reminded Members of the history of anti-social behaviour at the site which still continued.  She felt that the Council had a duty of care towards the residents and suggested that if the Committee granted the application that the permission should be reviewed every 3-6 months.  A condition should be attached  to prohibit guests sitting on balconies. There should be a manager at the hotel and deliveries should be made to the rear of the premises and no delivery vans in Spa Road itself.  Mrs Gregory-Davies asked Members to refuse the application.  If a management plan was drawn up she asked if the residents could be consulted on it and allowed to contribute to it.

Mr Brendan Dempsey addressed the Committee

Mr Dempsey told Members he had resided in the Judges Lodgings with his family for three years.  Since the introduction of the hotel his family could not sleep at weekends and had to endure anti-social behaviour.  His two children regularly witnessed naked and drunken people through their hallway which overlooked the hotel apartments.  Mr Dempsey wanted to sell his flat but had been unable to do so.

Members debated the issue of the appropriateness of the proposal in this location and a motion to defer the application was subsequently defeated by the Committee.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. David Jones, was invited back to address the Committee in support of the application.

Mr. Jones outlined the proposed building works outlined in the revised application which would enable segregation of the hotel units.  These apartments would be smaller and marketed at families/couples. He believed this would help to overcome objections to the proposals.  He described the downturn in the economy which had forced his client to look at this alternative use for the building.  Mr Jones remarked that the Environmental Health Protection Service Manager had not objected to the proposals previously.  The applicant was sympathetic to the anti-social behaviour issues, but believed this was prevalent in all town centres and should not be attributed exclusively to the Judges Lodgings.  Mr Jones said that the Development Control Manager’s recommendation acknowledged the suitability of the application.  He said that there was a need for more high quality hotels which were good for economy and enterprise.  Consent was only requested for 12 months which would give the Committee the opportunity to review the position again at that time.  He requested Members to approve the application.

Members questioned why no enforcement action had been taken against the owner after the application was refused in October 2011, and why the Environmental Protection Service Manager had not taken any action after receiving complaints.  The Officer explained that it was difficult for his team to witness the anti-social behaviour as it occurred at weekends.  He confirmed that his team was, however, actively investigating the complaints.

A Member suggested that a management strategy for a proper hotel with a receptionist and that marketing of the hotel should state that people should behave in a responsible way could be a solution. However Members agreed that anti-social behaviour of this nature would not be tolerated in this and any other location in the City and as   the hotel activities were disturbing residents to an unacceptable degree and should be refused permission.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused.

REASON

The application proposes in part to regularise an unauthorised hotel use of part of the building. The impacts of the hotel use have been carefully assessed. Due to the proximity of the hotel apartments to the existing occupied residential flat (no. 12) and the retained residential flats, the size of those hotel apartments and the range of target customers for the hotel apartments, it is concluded that disturbance is likely to be caused to a degree that would be significantly harmful to the residential amenities enjoyed by residential occupants of flats within the building. This would conflict with Policies BE.21 and FRP.10 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan 2002 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 24.