The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

This application was placed before the Committee on 23 September 2021, but

determination was deferred in order to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit.

The application was then placed before the Committee on 21 October 2021. At that

meeting the Committee resolved that it was 'minded to refuse' the application and

requested officers bring a report to a future meeting to address the concerns.

The Moss Nook is a part single/part two storey building with living accommodation in

the roofspace. It sits on the north-eastern corner of the Trenchard Drive/Ringway

Road junction and while currently vacant it was last used as a restaurant with living

accommodation above. To the rear of the property there is a garden area and a 20

space car park. Beyond the car park stands a 2 storey office building and its

associated car parking. To the front of the property, on the opposite side of

Trenchard Drive, stands The Tatton Arms PH. To the side of the property stands nos. 6-8 Trenchard Drive, a detached 2 storey office building and a detached outbuilding which also serves as an office. The remaining properties on Trenchard Drive are all dwellinghouses. On the opposite side of Ringway Road stands Smithy Farm.

The applicant was proposing to demolish the existing property and erect a part two/part three storey 30 bed hotel. At the rear of the proposed building the applicant originally proposed a 24 space car park accessed off Ringway Road, along with a cycle and bin store. Following concerns about parking numbers, this element of the scheme has been amended and the number of parking spaces increased to 30. Access to the car park would be via an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) controlled barrier. Two of the car parking spaces would be fitted with vehicle charging points; two would be designated disabled bays and three would be designated as night spaces, i.e. to be used for guests arriving late at night.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no late representations to add, stated that the car parking scheme had been upscaled to 30 places (1 per room) and added that the officer’s recommendation was for Approval of the application, although there were 2 potential reasons in the report for the Committee to refuse.

An objector addressed the Committee and spoke against the application, stating that there were 55 objections from local residents who shared the same feelings. The objector expressed that the application was incompatible with the area, being too large a proposal and noting that it would change the dynamic of the local area with the hotel requiring 24/7, 365 days a year access for deliveries, drop offs and pick ups. This would bring a larger number of people and vehicles into the area, which the objector stated was already surrounded on all sides by other locations such as business parks and Manchester Airport. Previously, Moss Nook restaurant had submitted a planning application for hotel status and this had been rejected as incompatible to the area and the objector explained that this had been a smaller proposal than the current application. The objector further expressed that the upscaled car parking was still not enough but added that there was insufficient space to do add more and added that public transport links were not local to the proposal. The objector concluded by saying that he was aware of 25-plus other Airport Hotels, others in progress and felt that this application was unnecessary.

The applicant addressed the Committee on the application.

A Local Ward Councillor addressed the Committee on the application, firstly expressing her thanks to local residents for their engagement with the scheme. The Ward Councillor stated that the 30 car parking spaces did not take account of staff and that there were already parking issues in the area which would be exacerbated if the application was approved. Deliveries and overnight traffic would affect the roads and the local area greatly and the overall design of the proposal would not be in keeping with the historic cottages and village feel of the area. The Ward Councillor concluded by requesting that the Committee refuse the application.

The Planning Officer stated that officers had taken on board the previous concerns of the Committee and referred to the potential reasons for refusal within the report.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions and comment on the application. 

Councillor Lovecy confirmed that she had voted for the refusal in October 2021 and was not persuaded by the new proposal, adding that she shared the viewpoints of the resident objector and Ward Councillor in that the scheme was out of keeping with the local area and not convenient to public transport links. Councillor Lovecy proposed a decision of Minded to Refuse.

The Planning Officer referred to the potential reasons for refusal within the report.

Councillor Andrews stated that the Officer’s recommendation had been Refuse in October 2021, that he was in support of the reasons given for refusal within the latest report and moved a recommendation of Refusal for the application for the reasons set out within the report.

Councillor Stogia seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee refused the application for the reasons detailed in the report submitted:

1. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of

neighbouring residents, particularly in relation to those residing on Trenchard

Drive and Maroon Road, due to the increase in the comings and goings to and from the site and the associated noise and disturbance and increase in traffic late at night and during the early hours of the morning, contrary to Policy DM1 in the Manchester Core Strategy and Saved UDP Policy DC26.

2. The proposed development by reason of its design and scale would form an

overly dominant and incongruous feature in the street scene to the detriment

of visual amenity and the character of the area in general, contrary to Policy

DM1 in the Manchester Core Strategy and the guidance contained within the

NPPF.