Agenda item

The conversion of no. 2-8 Bailiffgate to hotel (Use Class C1), demolition of rear of no. 2-8 Bailiffgate, construction of new build hotel (Use Class C1), refurbishment works to former gym block (Use Class D2), new vehicular access, landscaping and associated ancillary works.

Duchess High School Annexe, 2 Bailiffgate, Alnwick, Northumberland

NE66 1LZ

The conversion of no. 2-8 Bailiffgate to hotel (Use Class C1), demolition of rear of no. 2-8 Bailiffgate, construction of new build hotel (Use Class C1), refurbishment works to former gym block (Use Class D2), new vehicular access, landscaping and associated ancillary works.

Duchess High School Annexe, 2 Bailiffgate, Alnwick, Northumberland

NE66 1LZ 

J Bellis, Senior Planning Officer provided a joint introduction to this application and the listed building application 20/01239/LBC to the Committee with the aid of a power point presentation advising that a separate decision would still be required for each application. Updates were provided as follows:

• Paragraph 1.1 of the report incorrectly referred to the application being heard by the Strategic Planning Committee this should refer to the North Northumberland Local Area Committee.

• A revised recommendation was proposed for application 20/01238/FUL and would read as follows:-

“That this application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined and a S.106 legal agreement for a Coastal Mitigation Scheme contribution of £13,537 and the provision of a Traffic Regulation Order on Walkergate.”

A written statement provided by Alnwick Town Council was read out to the Committee by L. Little, Senior Democratic Services Officer and would be filed with the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

A written statement provided by the applicant in support of the application was read out to the Committee by V. Cartmell, Planning Area Manager - Development Management and would be filed with the signed minutes and uploaded to the Council’s website.

R Murfin, Director of Planning, reminded Members of the Committee should not confuse change with harm to heritage assets and protection of such was not meant to stop all change.  A balance had to be made between the benefits of the proposal against any harm and that hotels within town centres did not always require car parking when sufficient short and long term spaces were provided in the area.  Highways had assessed the application and, subject to conditions to be imposed to any permission granted and the inclusion of the TRO were satisfied.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

•                 Highways safety had been looked into in detail with the volume and speed of vehicles taken into consideration.  The conditions set out in the report secured the design and the provision of the TRO on Walkergate would prevent any on-street parking. Any additional car parking on the site over that being proposed would impact on the quality of the design of the scheme and it was considered that a balance had been achieved. The provision of additional car parking within the town centre had already been secured.  If Members required an informative could be added to any permission granted to request that patrons using the restaurant or gym be given information on alternative car parking within the town.

•                 The TRO would prevent householders from parking directly outside their properties to improve highways safety.

•                 In relation to concerns regarding the massing and scale of the development, Members were advised the final design was the product of a very long process with amendments and challenges of the site reconciled to provide a good quality design.  There were examples of all different types of buildings provided through the ages within the town centre and just because this was a different type of development it did not necessarily harm the setting. 

•                 The hotel operator was not a consideration Members should take into account as it could be sold at any time.

•                 Many city and urban areas had granted permissions with no parking attached, this had the maximum provided on site and also benefitted from the existing car parks within the town and the additional parking to be provided in close proximity.

•                 If there had been no car parking on site and the direct displacement of car parking had to be borne by the public purse then an additional sum might have been requested as part of the S106 agreement, however parking was being provided. 

•                 The sandstone wall and trees up The Peth from the Lion Bridge were being retained and would provide some screening of the new building.

•                 There would be a mix of sloping and flat roofs provided on the development with the drainage managed appropriately and a condition would be attached to any permission related to the materials to be used for the building.

•                 The provision of a hotel in this location fit in with the Council’s Tourism Strategy and the aims of Discover Northumberland. 

•                 The planning notification had been placed in the Morpeth Herald as it was published during lockdown and the Northumberland Gazette was not being published at that time. 

•                 The views of the site from the Castle had all been included within the evaluation of the application.

Councillor Renner-Thompson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application in accordance with officer recommendation as amended  above, which was seconded by Councillor Pattison. 

Councillor Watson suggested that a condition also be included to request a scheme to be submitted on how information would be provided on an ongoing basis on car parking within the Town Centre.   The Director of Planning stated that it could be that a management plan be requested so that when information was sent out to gym or restaurant users information could be included on car parking within the town centre. 

It was clarified that if a slight change to the scheme or wording was required which could be conditioned then this could be suggested and agreed. If however Members wished to propose wholescale changes to the application then they should refuse the application, then the applicant could re-submit their scheme or could submit an appeal against the decision.  The Director of Planning stated that Members must ask themselves how they would come to the conclusion of what a good scale or massing would be as Historic England, whose role it was to look at such things, were happy with the proposals.   It was not just about the size of a building, or the density, it was how it would sit within the street scene and how the development would fit into the town centre.  The new building would be higher the existing, but not massively so.  The broken roof line would alter the massing and the design had been acceptable to Heritage England. 

Members acknowledged that Alnwick as a major Service Centre for the County was ideally placed for a hotel of this size which would bring economic benefits and additional tourists to the area.  They were happy that the existing iconic buildings would be saved and be brought into use again however some Members still had reservations regarding the size of the new building annex. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application subject to the conditions as outlined in the report and delegated authority be provided to the Director of Planning to decide the wording of an additional condition related to the provision of local car parking facilities in the area and subject to a S106 agreement for a CMS contribution of £13,537 and a Traffic Regulation Order on Walkergate as follows:- FOR 6; AGAINST 2; ABSTENSIONS 1.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report with delegated authority provided to the Director of Planning to decide the wording of an additional condition related to the provision of local car parking facilities in the area and subject to a S106 agreement for a CMS contribution of £13,537 and a Traffic Regulation Order on Walkergate.