22-bedroom hotel at 1 Muir Place, Livingston

What was proposed

The application sought to convert offices into a hotel, add a floor to the single-storey section and provide 22 bedrooms with 24 parking spaces.

“The building comprises a modern office block located within an industrial estate at Houston, Livingston. Houston industrial estate is one of the more traditional industrial estates where a larger range of industrial uses, like heavy industrial and storage, are found. The building is two-storey in height, constructed of brick and render with a flat roof. The building has a single storey addition.”

“It is proposed to convert the building which has an existing class 4 office use to a class 7 hotel use. External works include an additional floor to be added to the single storey element to make that section two storey in height to match the main build. The works will provide 22 bedrooms with 24 parking spaces.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for the same type of hotel conversion was withdrawn because the planning department did not support it.

“Application 0002/FUL/25 for Change of use from offices (Class 4) to hotel (Class 7) with alterations and extension was withdrawn by the applicant due to lack of support by the planning department.”

Officer report

Compatibility with industry

Officers considered the hotel incompatible with the area’s industrial character and said the site’s design and constraints would not provide a satisfactory hotel environment.

“The site is employment land suitable for Class 4/5/6 use. The proposed use would not be compatible with the primary function of the area or compatible with the industrial character of the area. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring business as to the introduction of hotel accommodation being incompatible with the operations and noise produced by existing processes, and how this would impact on residents of the hotel.”

“The conversion to hotel would not be compatible with any commercial use of the area. Given the nature and current allocation of this site in the LDP, the change of use from employment land to hotel provision cannot be supported. Whilst there is policy support for hotel development in appropriate sites, the quality of design of the building and the constraints of the site/situation set within the industrial estate fails to create a satisfactory environment for hotel use.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health did not object but raised concerns about conflict with industrial operations, while Transportation did not object to the original proposal.

“This is a summary of the consultations received. The full documents are contained in the application file.”

“Consultee Objection? Comments Planning Response Environmental Health No Temporary living accommodation The siting of an hotel within an industrial complex gives rise to concern over a conflict of interest in in terms of the performance of business operations which is the primary function of the area.”

Officer report

Public views

Seven objections cited traffic, parking, road safety, noise, pollution, limited amenities and incompatibility, while five comments supported worker accommodation and reuse of the vacant building.

“Support Comments Response • Lack of accommodation for workers within the estate • There is provision of accommodation in wider area • Works would enhance the building and estate - a sustainable use for a vacant lot • The site lies within employment land • This is suitable for Class 4/5/6/ use • Works would support investment and employment adding to vitality of the area • The site lies within employment land • This is suitable for Class 4/5/6/ use…”

“Lack of amenities to attract visitors • There are no immediate local attractions • Noise and pollution affecting users • Environmental Health has not objected given it is temporary accommodation • Existing hotel accommodation nearby • There is provision of accommodation in wider area • Water and drainage • The connections are to existing services…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the application.

The decision

The committee refused planning permission for the reasons outlined in the committee report.

“0086/FUL/26 The committee considered a report (copies of which had been circulated) by the Head of Planning, Economic Development and Regeneration concerning an application as follows: Application No.”

Minutes