Decision details

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and provided updates regarding representations received following its submission: 

·         A petition had been received from local residents titled ‘the undersigned strongly object to the plans for such a large hotel’ which had 36 signatures.

·         Three further letters of representation had been received which raised similar issues to those already set out in the report. 

The Planning Officer requested that the recommendation of the report on page 17, point A, the requirement for the section 106 agreement covering highway improvement be a Grampian style condition. This is more appropriate as a condition and would achieve the same outcome.

The previous building had no architectural value and had been stripped out since it had become empty in 2017 and was no longer fit for the hotel market.   Although the current building was well screened by trees, the proposed building would be visible due to the increase in size but Planning Officers on balance, considered  that there was insufficient impact on the neighbouring property or surrounding landscape to oppose the application.  There were no highway, archaeology or ecology concerns.

The site contained a high pressure sewer pipe and the proposed plans had been adapted to avoid this which had also constrained the development.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Mr John Church, Objector

·         Mr Jeremy Williams, Agent

Members requested clarification regarding the viability of the development and if the size of the property was necessary to the development.  The Planning Officers confirmed that the scale of the proposal was supported by the viability information and that this was consistent with other recent hotel proposals in the National Park. 

Members expressed support for the design and improvement to the street scene that the development would bring.

The Officer recommendation to approve the application was moved.

Members confirmed support for the demolition of the current building and redevelopment of the site but were concerned regarding the size of the proposal and asked if smaller options could be considered.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the current application was based on the viability study which only considered the application proposal. This was not a full development financial viability assessment which would normally assess the viability of other development within policy alongside smaller scale hotel proposals. 

Members expressed concern that refusal of this application would lead to a derelict site being left undeveloped.

The Committee Chair confirmed with Officers that it would be reasonable to refuse the application on the issue of scale and massing and no other issues to be considered.

The Officer recommendation to approve the application was seconded, put to the vote but not carried

A motion to refuse the application contrary to Officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

Members confirmed that the reason for refusal was the scale and mass of the development and the impact on the landscape

The motion to refuse the application contrary to Officer recommendation was voted on and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.    That the excessive scale, height and massing of the hotel building in this proposal for ‘major development’ would cause significant harm to the valued character of the National Park landscape and that the harm identified would not be outweighed by the public benefits arising from the proposal.