128-room hotel extension at Novotel, 234 Bath Road, London

“Retrospective planning permission is sought for the erection of a four-storey extension to the existing hotel building. The extension would be linked to the main hotel building by a second -floor covered link bridge. 128 bedrooms are proposed within the extension, alongside circulation areas, ancillary spaces used for housekeeping; and plant rooms provided in the basement and at fourth floor level.”

“The site comprises a 159-bedroom hotel, located within a building that previously functioned as an office. Planning permission was granted to change the use of the building into a hotel in September 2015. The building has a brick facade with prominent dark coloured external glazing. The building is located approximately 200 metres to the north of Heathrow Airport and adjoins Bath Road (A4).”

“The land uses adjoining Bath Road primarily consist of hotels, office uses or airport parking. Axis House immediately to the west of the site falls within a residential use. The site lies to the south of Harlington village and there is surrounding low rise residential housing to the north and north west of the site. The buildings to the north east of the site and east of the site adjoining Mondial Road are used as offices.”

“Planning permission was granted in December 2016 (41331/APP/2016/1035) for a four-storey extension to the hotel, which would be connected to the main building via a glazed linked walkway at first floor level. Development commenced on the extension to the hotel, which was located on an area of car parking associated with the hotel in November 2019 .”

“The development which has been carried out has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans provided under planning application 41331/APP/2016/1035 and is not considered to be lawful as there are various discrepancies between the consented plans and the development as constructed.”

“Members noted that the development was intended to operate as largely car-free accommodation and queried why the proposed development still provided 57 parking spaces. Officers advised that the hotel primarily served travellers associated with Heathrow Airport.”

“Members acknowledged the need for a proportionate response to retrospective planning applications and sought clarification regarding how officers had worked with the applicant to address the situation and prevent similar occurrences in the future. Officers advised that discrepancies between the approved scheme and the works undertaken had been identified when the applicant submitted a subsequent planning application.”

“Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.”

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved…”