Third time lucky for previously rejected Redcar hotel extension aimed at creating more bedrooms

The Park Hotel in Redcar
-Credit: (Image: Google Maps)


Persistence has paid off in the case of a Redcar hotel wishing to expand, but which was previously refused planning permission to do so.

Planning documents show The Park Hotel succeeded with appeals last month to the Planning Inspectorate, making it third time lucky after two previous applications were turned down by councillors against officer recommendations. Written representations had been made with appeals by applicant JCM Plant being granted and permission allowed in both instances, albeit with conditions attached.

The Park Hotel originally wanted to convert an end of terrace property in Granville Terrace next door to it to provide an additional 14 bedrooms. The application for a change of use was turned down by councillors in December after concerns about noisy contractors, insufficient car parking and the impact on the terrace which was described as a “small enclave” where everyone knew each other.

Another application was almost immediately lodged, reducing the number of bedrooms to 12, with more car parking spaces being added due in part to a detached associated garage being demolished to create four parking spaces. This was heard in March by the council’s regulatory committee and also refused.

The vast majority of neighbours along the terrace were said to strongly object to the conversion, while former councillor Alison Barnes, who lives in the vicinity, claimed work had already begun on the property prior to the change of use permission sought, including the removal of a chimney and new windows being installed. These were described by a representative of the applicant as general maintenance.

Tom Hutchinson from consultancy firm Lichfields, an agent involved in the application, told a meeting there would not be any material change to the appearance of the building and the character of adjacent residential properties would be unaffected. He also said the applicant was agreeable to a recommendation of soundproofing mitigation measures and would consider further obscured glazing where necessary in any windows overlooking a nearby garden.

Mr Hutchinson said it was felt the original grounds for refusal were “unjust” and confirmed an appeal over the first application, while also stating it could be withdrawn if permission was granted second time around. But the then planning committee chairman Councillor Dr Tristan Learoyd said the committee were being “hardballed” and the approach being taken was disappointing.

Another committee member, Councillor Philip Thomson said the revised application was “in no way radically different” to the previous rejected one and the change from residential to hotel use was not merited. However a planning inspector concluded the proposed development would have no significant detrimental impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties, nor have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The inspector suggested he was satisfied with car parking provision taking into account that available on site, alternative parking options in the surrounding area and the potential provision of secure cycle parking and electric vehicle charging facilities, which meant there would not be a significant detrimental or adverse effect on highway safety.

The inspector also sided with the applicant in terms of concerns that had been raised over inadequate drainage capacity and said the development would consider the needs of potential visitors with disabilities. Several conditions would be required to be met for the development, including soundproofing measures and obscure glazing in windows facing a neighbouring property.