Redcar's Park Hotel, refused permission to convert property

The Park Hotel, in Redcar, was knocked back only in December with an application for a change of use for the end terraced home in Granville Terrace amid worries over noise, insufficient car parking and privacy impacts.

An amended application brought before Redcar and Cleveland Council’s regulatory committee reduced the number of en-suite bedrooms planned from 14 to 12, while a garage would be demolished to create four additional parking spaces.

But some living in the “unique” row of houses maintained their previous objections, while councillors were also unconvinced, describing the plans as essentially the same.

Resident Andrew Wilson said: “I and the vast majority of neighbours along Granville Terrace strongly object to this proposed change of use and agree with the committee’s previous thorough consideration and rationale for rejecting an almost identical application only last December.”

Mr Wilson said Granville Terrace was a “unique row of Edwardian private houses” situated on a “golden corridor” into Redcar town centre, where residents knew and interacted with each other.

He said: “The proposal would change the whole dynamic of our neighbourhood.”

Former councillor Alison Barnes, who lives in Granville Terrace, complained that work had already been done on the property – bought by the hotel last year – “for months” with a chimney being removed and new windows put in.

She said: “The Park Hotel currently has 32 en-suite bedrooms and there are associated problems with parking.

“The hotel would increase its capacity by almost 40%.”

Concerns were expressed about hotel customers taking up residents’ car parking spaces, although they were to be directed to a public car park in nearby Fisherman’s Square as part of a car parking management plan.

A representative of the agent Lichfields, Tom Hutchinson said there would not be any material change to the appearance of the building and the character of adjacent residential properties would be unaffected.

Responding to Mrs Barnes’ comments about work having already begun to convert the property, he said it had just been general maintenance.

He also said the applicant was agreeable to a recommendation of soundproofing mitigation measures.

Mr Hutchinson confirmed the hotel had appealed the original decision at the end of last year, but consideration would be given to withdrawing it if permission was granted.

He said: “In submitting the appeal they felt the reasons for refusal were unjust and decided the best course of action was to appeal.”

‘Hardballing this committee’ Councillor Tristan Learoyd, chairman of the committee, said the appeal was “hardballing this committee” and the approach being taken was “disappointing”.

Councillor Philip Thomson asked if any consideration had been given to extending the hotel itself with Mr Hutchinson replying that it was a fairly constrained site and converting the property at number six was considered an acceptable way of increasing its capacity.

Questions were also asked about windows overlooking neighbouring gardens with the agent stating further obscured glazing could be considered if necessary.

He was also asked if there would be signage on the property stating it was a hotel, but said this was not the intention.

Cllr Thomson said the application was “in no way radically different” to the previous rejected application and the change from residential to hotel use was not merited.

Most read: 

• Revamp of DLI Museum in Durham likened to 'vandalism'
• Letters to heaven post box granted at East Stanley Cemetery
• Banned driver from Darlington jailed after early hours' police pursuit

Northern Echo readers can subscribe for just £4 for 4 months in this flash sale Click here 

Councillor Stephen Martin said the development “did not sit well with me” and it was “two separate buildings with a road in between.”

Councillor Malcolm Head proposed the application was refused with seven councillors – a majority of the committee – voting in favour of this.

A report by a council planning officer had recommended approval and said the principle of a change of use and conversion of the property in this location was acceptable, while there would be no adverse impacts resulting.