Agenda item

It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Area Manager - North introduced the report and explained that the original application had been approved with a S106 Legal Agreement as an exception to policies due to the public benefit and the S106 legal agreement secured these..  He stated that the proposed changes to the apartments meant Officers consider they would now be Use Class C3 (dwelling house) not Use Class C1 (hotels) and that although not against the principle of the different  type of holiday accommodation proposed, an occupancy condition would  be required to ensure the apartments remain in short term holiday use.  Officers were concerned that as the applicant says they could not now develop the hotel and the heritage centre concurrently there was no guarantee that the public benefits would be delivered.  The design of the proposed apartments at the rear of the building had also been changed and it was felt this did not now reflect the original, more fitting, mill style, however this could be overcome by changes to the design.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings scheme:

·         Mr C Waddington, Investor and Supporter

·         Taylor & Emmet Solicitors, Supporters – unable to attend, statement read out by Mr S Lamb

·         Together Travel, Supporters – unable to attend, statement read out by Mr S Lamb

·         Ms N Roe, Barton Wilmore Planning Consultant, Supporter

·         Ms S Bettney, Chair of Stoney Middleton Parish Council, Supporter

·         Ms D Evans, Agent for Wentworths Estate Agents, Supporter

·         Mr C Hall, Applicant

The Director of Conservation and Planning explained that he had been closely involved in discussions concerning the site over the past few years and referred to a complaint made by the applicant which had now been referred to the Ombudsman and explained why the officers considered that the amendments to the application were class C3 and not Class C1.

The development had been previously approved as an exception due to the public benefit offered (the heritage centre and meeting room available for public use), Members felt this was still important and a motion for refusal was moved but not seconded.  Members were disappointed that a compromise over the occupancy condition had not been reached.  Officers stated that if Members were minded to support a 28 day occupancy condition with a S.106 agreement and resolve amendments to the design then the application could be deferred to allow for further discussions with the applicant.

A motion for deferral, to allow officers to hold further discussions with the applicant regarding a 28 day occupancy restriction, tying the 2 buildings together and to resolve the design issues was moved and seconded.  This was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further discussion with the applicant.