|
|
TCP/08200/X P/01130/02 Parish/Name: Freshwater Registration Date: 28/06/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr.
A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Demolition of single and 2
storey building at northern end of hotel; construction of 3 storey extension
to provide 15 bedrooms and bathroom suites; new entrance and associated
office accommodation; alterations to improve existing bedrooms at 1st floor level,
The Albion Hotel,
Freshwater Bay, Freshwater, PO409RA |
This application was the subject of a report to
this Committee at the meeting held on 17 September 2002 where Members resolved
to defer the application in order for Officers to carry out negotiations with
the applicant's agent in order to achieve a scheme which is more in keeping
with the site. A meeting has
subsequently been held, attended by both the applicant and his agent who have
requested that the application is determined in the submitted form. Additions to the text of the report are
produced in bold print.
Representations
Freshwater Parish Council object to application on
grounds that three storey building would be too high and totally out of keeping
with the neighbouring buildings and with the surrounding Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
In his initial comments, Highway Engineer
considered that proposals envisaged in this application have implications
affecting the highway and he recommended refusal on grounds that the
information accompanying the application was inadequate and deficient in detail
in respect of vehicle parking and access to enable the Authority to fully
consider the effects of the proposal.
Following submission of further plans detailing access arrangements,
Highway Engineer has withdrawn his objection to the scheme and recommends
conditions should application be approved.
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer advises
that, although he would welcome an improvement to the existing single storey
extension at the northern end of the Albion Hotel, he considers the proposal as
submitted would prove to be detrimental to the AONB on grounds of its scale,
and consequential impact on the surrounding area, particularly when viewed from
Freshwater Bay and to east of site and proximity of the three storey element to
Gate Lane. He does not consider that
proposal would reflect the landscape, would be highly visible and would cause
an overdeveloped and hemmed in feeling as you approach the bay from the
west. He also comments that site is
within Heritage Coast where there is a presumption in policy terms against new
build and that this should also be relevant to an increase in capacity of those
buildings/facilities already in operation where this involves major extension
works. Having regard to these comments,
he objects to proposal in its current form on grounds of its detrimental impact
on the AONB and Heritage Coast which is contrary to policies C2 and C4 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
Environmental Health Department advise that they have
no adverse comment with regard to application.
Application has attracted total of nine letters of
objection, six from local residents and letters from National Trust, Freshwater
Bay Residents Association and Islandwatch.
Grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:
Height of
extension would have negative and domineering effect on the locality of the bay
and would be out of keeping with the existing hotel buildings.
Three storey
building would have adverse impact on views into and out of the bay and would
obliterate the view of Stag Rock from Gate Lane.
Unable to
ascertain height of buildings from plans and what effect structure would have
on view of bay, beach and cliffs - whilst plan at scale of 1:100, no dimensions
are marked. Need for dimensions
critical in respect of distance of building from edge of Gate Lane and width
and shape of drive off highway.
Proposed
"drop off point" as detailed on plans located at point where road
narrows, with poor sight lines and there is very poor provision for pedestrian
traffic either side of the road.
Drop off
point located opposite Coastguard Lane from which visibility is not good.
Traffic from
access road to east of Albion Hotel and car park to west causes interruption to
flow of traffic - current scheme does not address this problem although it
seems that set back of building from line of current structure will improve
visibility.
Due to lack
of footpaths in the immediate locality, pedestrians use road - proposal will
exacerbate situation with pedestrians competing with users of the proposed
hotel entrance/drop off area.
Plans do not
provide adequately detailed information of the proposed drop off area.
Vehicles
queuing to access site would project into road - proposed access would create
hazard for highway users.
One resident comments that the single storey flat roof
building, previously used as a cafe, has become an eyesore and its demolition
is welcomed.
Whilst objecting to the current proposal, Freshwater
Bay Residents Association suggest that two storey building would enhance hotel
and would not interfere with view of bay when approaching from west along Gate
Lane.
Three letters have been received from local residents
in support of proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Demolition
of existing dilapidated single storey element and extending and upgrading
establishment would be very advantageous and improve Freshwater Bay.
Application
follows series of proposals which have been turned down resulting in bay becoming
more and more derelict.
Height of
extension no higher than seaward end of the hotel and certainly not as high as
Afton Down House on other side of road - will not obscure view of bay.
Northern end
of building detracts from attractiveness of rest of hotel.
Site is in
Heritage Coast - Freshwater Bay should be restored to the beauty spot it once
was with Albion Hotel as the focal point.
Evaluation
Application relates to the Albion Hotel situated on
western side of Freshwater Bay.
Building is prominent within and dominates the bay. East facing section of hotel is a
combination of two storey and single storey buildings with pitched roof whilst
element immediately adjacent Gate Lane is constructed under a flat roof. In contrast, the southern/western section of
the hotel is of more modern appearance and construction, three storeys in
height on seaward side and single/two storey in height facing car park fronting
Gate Lane, all under a flat roof.
Planning permission was granted in April 1998 for
alterations, extensions and refurbishment of hotel to provide accommodation
including forty seven additional bedrooms, reception area, foyer, indoor
swimming pool, additional first and second floor extensions under pitched roofs
and raised tower. Proposal also included
demolition of single storey cafe, new single storey replacement cafe,
resurfacing and seasonal use of car park area as open air cafe and formation of
footpath and alterations to car park access.
Proposal involved significant additions to building, effectively
increasing its height by an additional storey, with the exception of the cafe
element adjacent Gate Lane which remained single storey in height. Because of sensitive nature of the area and
desire to ensure that if the development took place, it did so fairly quickly,
a three year time limit on the consent was imposed, thus this permission has
now expired.
Planning permission was refused in March 2002 for
demolition of single and two storey building at northern end of hotel and
construction of a three storey extension to provide bedroom accommodation, new
entrance and associated office accommodation together with alterations to
existing bedrooms. Application was
refused for the following reasons:
1.
The proposal by reason of its position, size, mass,
design and appearance would be intrusive, out of keeping with the original
building as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities and
character of the locality, contrary to policies S6, G4 and D1 of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The application site is within an area
designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, and the proposal would be detrimental to the character of the area by
reason of its position, size, mass, design and appearance and would be contrary
to policies C1 and C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Current application seeks planning permission for
identical proposal to that refused in March of this year.
Site is located outside settlement of Freshwater as
defined by development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. In addition, site is shown to be within an
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast and a Wild Bird
Sanctuary. Relevant policies of the
plan are considered to be as follows:
S1 - New
development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S4 - The
countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
S6 - All
development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.
S10 - In
areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archeological,
historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will
conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 - General
Locational Criteria for Development.
G5 -
Development Outside Defined Settlements.
D1 -
Standards of Design.
D2 -
Standards for Development Within the Site.
T1 - The
Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.
T3 -
Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation.
C1 -
Protection of Landscape Character.
C2 - Areas
of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
C4 -
Heritage Coast.
TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development.
Determining factors in considering application are
whether size, scale, design and general appearance of extension are considered
to be appropriate or would be out of keeping with the existing building and
surrounding area to the detriment of the amenities and character of the
locality, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage
Coast. Furthermore, having regard to
relatively recent refusal of planning permission for identical scheme, it is
necessary to consider whether there has been any change in circumstances or
factors which would justify a different decision.
It is recognised that the tourist industry contributes
significantly to the economy of the Island and the Council would wish to
support appropriate proposals for tourism accommodation and facilities. In particular, in accordance with policy T1
of the Unitary Development Plan, proposals which promote and support tourism
and/or seek to extend the tourism season will be acceptable in principle, provided
they minimise any detrimental or adverse impact. As the applicant and his agent
point out in their supporting information, the current proposal involves
provision of accommodation associated with an existing accommodation site and
will also facilitate the upgrading of the existing accommodation. Therefore, I am satisfied that proposal
complies with policy T3 of the plan.
However, it is also necessary to have regard for other policies of the
plan which seek to ensure that proposals are of an appropriate design and do
not detract from the character of the area.
In this respect, policies C1, C2 and C4 are considered to be
particularly relevant and place emphasise on ensuring that proposals do not
have a detrimental impact on the landscape, especially those designated for
their landscape value.
The Albion Hotel is one of the largest hotels in the
West Wight and is considered to be an important asset to the tourism
industry. Therefore, I do not consider
there to be any objection in principle to an extension to the building,
particularly where this will facilitate or lead to further upgrading of the
existing accommodation. However, having
regard to the prominent position occupied by the building, the design of any
extension needs to be of the highest standard and its scale must relate well to
the existing building and the surrounding area. In this instance, the proposed extension would be partially on
the site of the single storey element located adjacent Gate Lane frontage and
which is proposed to be totally removed. It will occupy a prominent
position. Therefore, having regard to
the height and mass of the extension, particularly when compared with the
character and scale of the original building, it is considered that the
proposal would be visually intrusive, particularly when viewed from eastern
side of the bay and when approaching site along Gate Lane from the west.
Whilst it is accepted that planning permission has
previously been granted for substantial additions which would result in a
building of significant mass, this formed a comprehensive scheme having
continuity and which maintained the general theme of the present building,
reducing from four storeys at the southern end of the site to single storey at
the north, thus maintaining a single storey element close to Gate Lane. In contrast, I consider that the design,
scale and mass of the current proposal is unrelated to the character and
appearance of the building and would result in a dominant feature which would
be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the amenities and character of the
locality.
Current application is accompanied by letter providing
information in support of proposal which is attached to this report as an
appendix. I also attach as an appendix
information provided by the applicant prior to the meeting at which the
previous application was considered. In
addition to this information, a meeting was recently held at the Seaclose
offices attended by Officers of the Council and the applicant and his
agent. Matters discussed at this
meeting included the need for the extension, which is addressed in the
documents appended to this report, and the site conditions which present
difficulties in providing the required accommodation within a two storey
extension. In addition, the applicant
expressed concern regarding comments contained in the previous report and the
potential for this to be misinterpreted.
In particular, representations received in respect of both the previous
application and the current submission express concern that extension would
obscure view of Stag Rock when approaching from west along Gate Lane. I accept that this would not be the case and
it should be noted that existing single storey element encroaches closer to frontage
with Gate Lane than proposed extension.
However, I remain of the opinion that the extension, by reason of its
scale, mass and general appearance, and particularly its height, would have a
detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area in general. During the recent meeting, these factors
were discussed and applicant disputed that extension would be visually
prominent or would detract from the character of the locality. Whilst he was invited to submit further
information including photographs to support this view, to date no such
information has been received.
Whilst objectors to the proposal have raised issues
regarding adequacy of drawings, and in particular the fact that they are not
dimensioned, I would advise Members that it is a requirement that all plans
accompanying planning submissions are drawn to a recognised metric scale or, in
the case of some straightforward proposals, plans should contain metric
dimensions. In the case of the current
submission, the plans are prepared to a recognised metric scale and I am
satisfied that they contain adequate information to enable the Authority to
assess fully the impact of the proposed extension in the landscape.
Whilst Highway Engineer has recommended refusal to
current application on grounds that the information accompanying the submission
is inadequate and deficient in respect of vehicle parking and access to enable
him to consider the effects of the proposal, it should be noted that he raised
no objection to previous application which included a greater level of
information in this respect. Therefore,
I do not consider that this issue would be insurmountable. However, Members
will note from above comments that despite fact that agent has been invited to
submit further information, to date none has been received. Section of road
adjacent northern end of building is narrow with restricted pavements. Proposed
extension would not project as close to road as existing single storey element
and is likely to result in improvements to sightlines across this corner,
particularly from the access road to the east of the hotel and from the access
to the car park. This would provide a safe haven for pedestrians. Nevertheless,
I do not consider that such benefits would be sufficient to justify approval of
application for development which would have significant and adverse impact on
the landscape of the area, designated as an AONB.
Not withstanding the above comments, and in the
absence of adequate information in this respect, additional reason for refusal
suggested by Highway Engineer is considered appropriate.
Meeting with applicant has provided greater
understanding of the background to the current proposal, including the
operational requirements of the hotel and the constraints to development
elsewhere within the site. Applicant
clearly has a great deal of experience in running hotels and wishes to upgrade
The Albion Hotel to provide quality accommodation to meet demands of the modern
day tourist industry. In order to
achieve this aim, he has already carried out quite substantial internal
alterations to the building to increase the size of bedroom accommodation and
provide larger en-suite facilities which will also satisfy requirements of the
Disability Discrimination Act. This has
inevitably resulted in a reduction in the number of bedrooms within the
property. Therefore, current proposal
attempts to replace bedroom accommodation which has been lost as a result of
these upgrading works.
Members will be familiar with a previous scheme
for substantial extensions to the hotel which would have provided an additional
47 bedrooms and ancillary facilities.
During recent meeting, applicant's agent advised that this scheme would
not be economically viable to build due to a number of factors, including the
condition and construction of the existing building. In any event, applicant suggests that accommodation which would
be provided within this scheme would be substandard and would not satisfy
Disability Discrimination Act or modern day requirements.
Consideration has been given to construction of
a two storey extension at the northern end of the hotel. However, I am advised that this would
necessitate significant excavations into the adjacent car park area and
construction of substantial retaining walls.
Furthermore, I am advised that development in this form would not
satisfy the operational requirements of the hotel and would result in
accommodation in locations which would conflict with other activities within
the hotel, including deliveries to the property and storage of refuse. Provision of an additional storey over the
flat roofed element at the southern end of the building has been discounted due
to construction of this element and disturbance this would cause to this part
of the building. Therefore, applicant
considers only reasonable option available to him is to construct extension in
the form proposed.
Notwithstanding the above comments, I remain
concerned that construction of a three storey extension in the form proposed
would be visually intrusive and would detract from the visual amenities and
character of the locality. Whilst
appreciating the constraints to development of the site and the need for any
scheme to be economically viable, I do not consider that these factors outweigh
the adverse effect that the proposal would have. Therefore, my recommendation is unchanged. In considering the proposal Members need to
assess the relative importance which they wish to give to the various policies
in the UDP in general, and those relating to tourism promotion and design
issues in particular.
Reason for Recommendation
Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all
material considerations referred to in this report, the size, scale and design
of the proposed extension is considered to be inappropriate, out of keeping
with the original building, and would be visually intrusive, forming a dominant
element, to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality
which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage
Coast.
Furthermore, I do not consider that there has been any
change in circumstances since refusal of the previous application and no
additional information has been forthcoming which would justify a different
decision.
Recommendation -
Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposal by reason of its position, size, mass,
design and appearance would be intrusive, out of keeping with the original
building as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities and
character of the locality, contrary to strategic policy S6 and policies G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development) and D1 (Standards of Design) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The application site is within an area designated by
the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and is also defined as an Heritage Coast, and the proposal would be
detrimental to the character of the area by reason of its position, size,
mass, design and appearance and would be contrary to policies C1 (Protection
of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C4
(Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services