Harlow Council grant planning permission for new Premier Inn on Church Langley site

News / Thu 7th Jun 2018 at 09:42am

HARLOW Council’s planning committee granted planning permission for a new Premier Inn on a site in Church Langley.

The new hotel will be sited between the Potters Arms pub and Church Langley Primary School.

Despite close to 300 written objections being filled just five members of the public attended the meeting.

The committee, a cross section of Labour and Conservative councillors voted unanimously to approve the application.

Film of the meeting is below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

14 Comments for Harlow Council grant planning permission for new Premier Inn on Church Langley site:

2018-06-07 11:08:02

No surprise there then.

2018-06-07 11:56:08

Where are all the NIMBYs at? Nimbiones, Nimbiones, ole, ole, ole!

2018-06-07 16:27:55

Yet more insults from JFQ1 The fact is that a hotel could and should have been built within the new development nearby. Everyone who lives in Church Langley knows only to well of the traffic problems which exist on entering and exiting the area. Putting a hotel next to the school and the Tesco entrance will only make the problem worse, what with customers coming and going on a daily basis and vehicles providing services to the hotel itself. Yet another example of the Labour Council taking no notice of residents concerns. We can all start to compile a list of the so called consultation exercises they carry out and see what difference such consultation has on the final scheme 1 Hotel at Church Langley ... NONE 2 Lister House development 3 Bushey Croft development 4 The Labour Party Local Plan 5 St Andrews Meadow development .......... to be continued ....

2018-06-07 17:15:34

How is that an insult? I didn't refer to anyone by name and I shared an adaptation of a football chant for humorous effect. You Tory types are so angry with everything.

2018-06-07 17:40:26

You really do not understand what an insult is do you? The residents objecting to the planning application do not live near the development but have expressed concerns primarily about road safety. The term NIMBY is in itself an insult. Then you call me a Tory type, another insult, I am not a type or a Tory. The only person who I think finds a football chant humorous is yourself. I can only conclude that you think having a hotel in this location is a good one. I expect 4000 residents in Church Langley can only think that you have no experience of getting a child to school or negotiating these busy roads.

2018-06-07 18:23:23

You might want to revise your view on only me enjoying a football chant what with the billions watching the World Cup in a couple of weeks. NIMBY is not an insult, merely an observation of an opinion. Plenty call themselves Tories and don't think it's an insult. And saying you're a type isn't an insult either. Church Langley isn't a sprawling metropolis like Los Angeles, why don't they walk to school? Exercise is good for you.

tony edwards
2018-06-07 18:52:52

Ten Pin The vote of the Development Management Committee was unanimous. Both Conservative and Labour Party councillors, despite having reservations, voted for the proposal. As councillors we have to judge proposals purely within planning law. There were no strong grounds within planning law to "reasonably" object to this proposal. You might want to look at the information provide to the Committee. http://moderngov.harlow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=1027&Ver=4

2018-06-07 23:02:13

Well Cllr Edwards, clearly the view and or information given by Cllr Carter in his recent statement on the matter was wrong then? This must be another case where planning guidelines are ignored and money talks. I hope residents in Church Langley remember the fact that so many of them were ignored by both parties the next time a local election comes around.

2018-06-08 05:15:10

Listen to Tony, he's a councillor and you're not, Tenpin. He knows of which he speaks. A coalition of councillors across the board agreed to the building. Yes, with concerns but they all agreed.

tony edwards
2018-06-08 07:23:29

Interestingly according to a report in Your Harlow on the 12th February 2018 Church Langley councillor, Simon Carter said: “I am broadly supportive of the application. It appears the applicants have listened to previous concerns. The area will need a hotel as Kao Park grows but I also appreciate resident’s concerns”. I appreciate of course Cllr Carter's right to change his mind and to advocate on behalf of those who did not want the proposed hotel However, despite Councillor's of both parties expressing some reservations, the final unanimous decision was made purely on planning grounds as there were no strong grounds within planning law to “reasonably” object to this proposal.

2018-06-08 10:44:36

Well of course JFQ we all have to accept the views of our councillors, because they know best, that is until the Conservative Party come up with ideas and then things are very different for you. The fact is as I understand, as outlined by Cllr Carter, this land was designated for specific uses. However it did not specifically exclude other uses and so the decision has now been made to use it for another purpose. The same goes for all the green spaces which are to be lost to Harlow's Local Plan which is at this moment subject to a six week consultation exercise. Area designated for decades as play areas and public open spaces may now be turned into housing sites. Unless a resident is able to access the web, they are very unlikely to know that this consultation is even taking place, there are just 29 days to go. We are continuing our campaigning against the change in status of this land. We are finding that residents are very angry that changes are going to be made without any meaningful consultation. O, but never mind, my Labour Councillor knows best.

2018-06-08 15:06:51

I must have missed the Your Harlow article about the angry residents, and the Harlow Star story. Anywhere else I can find them? They keep themselves well hidden, like. Having a councillor like Tony on here to explain the process with an insider's viewpoint is invaluable. I don't think it's wrong to trust him.

2018-06-08 17:38:59

On Wednesday night was Harlow Council’s planning policy ripped up and rewritten on the spot? Protecting neighbourhood centres & hatches against unwanted development the policy has served Harlow well, so why allow a somewhat ‘ugly’ unwanted 3 story hotel within 10 metres of a single story primary school? Now I’m not suggesting those participating in the decision were biased or that the decision was unlawful, irrational or procedurally improper, however we do need to look at the facts. The proposal is not compliant with Policy BE1: “character and identity” the flat roofed three story building clashes with all surrounding pitched roof brick faced buildings. Clearly not forming an appropriate visual relationship with the surrounding area, yes a prison does come to mind Cllr Carter. RTCS14:"Neighbourhood Centres and Hatches" “permission will be granted for proposals that strengthen and maintain the role of the neighbourhood centre and hatches”. Giving various reasons, 000’s of objections stated that the proposal would fail RTCS14 yet planning implied that these objections where based on the fear that the hotel will attract “miscreants/ Opportunities for crime”. Councillors concluded that the hotel would serve Harlow Enterprise Zone, bringing economic benefit for Church Langley while another suggested that the hotel will benefit Church Langley residents due to their small homes (this is an insult Cllr). If this hotel was passed to serve London Road business visitors it fails RTCS14 as it’s not for the benefit of Church Langley residents.The only economic benefit would be to Witbread PLC and Tesco Petrol garage. Church Langley residents have managed perfectly well for many years without a hotel on its doorstep. Policy RTCS15 sets out the supported uses within Neighbourhood Centres. It clearly lists A1, A2, D1, D2 and a Launderette, yet was this when the line was crossed? Planning appeared to justify the inclusion of a C1 Hotel as acceptable. Hello did anyone listen to Councillor Carter’s speech? The majority of objections were based on concerns regarding the traffic mixed with pedestrians, mainly children. Now Planning implied that the Highway Authority agreed with the developer’s traffic statement and the development will have an insignificant impact on the existing highway. Now anyone that knows the zebra crossing outside the Potters Arms knows that you have to play chicken run with oncoming vehicles as the angle causes a blind spot. This is an unadopted (private) access road not covered by the Highway Authority’s response; their response covers the roundabout joining Church Langley Way. It clear that the grounds for decision were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the planning policy, if local government officers advised the applicant how to get planning permission this comes too close for comfort and may well cross the line of the Officers Code of Conduct. The role of the Planning Committee is to guide the council in the formulation of its planning policies, Mr Doyle raised these very policies in his speech yet not one Cllr picked up on this. This whole process leaves many unanswered question as to why planners backed the application twisting the policy and councillor ignored reasonable objections, three speakers and failed adhere to the planning policy. This all sounds a bit dodgy to me.

2018-06-08 20:21:04

That's a very long comment. Have you submitted it through the proper channels to register your concerns? If not, it's all a bit pointless isn't it.

Leave a Comment Below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *