Agenda item

Deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to review  any off-site contribution and the details of any site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities .

PROPOSAL:  Change of use of the 1st, 2nd and part of the ground floor of the public house (Use class A4) to create 8 self-contained flats ( 3 x 1bed, 3 x 2bed and 2 x 3bed) together with associated alterations to include removal of rear dormer window, new 2nd floor rear extension, stairwell extension, replacement and relocation of some of the windows, insertion of new windows and roof lights, terraces and screening, cycle parking spaces and bin stores.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to the issues raised at the site visit in relation to noise, entrance to the public house and community use of the property.  He confirmed that there was an extensive history of noise complaints with the site according to meetings held between Environmental Health officers and local residents and with the operator.  He continued that due to the commercial character of the area, the use of the entrance on the corner of Hopefield Avenue would not necessarily lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents.  The Area Planning Manager added that as far as he had established, the community groups had relocated to nearby Salusbury School and Salusbury Rooms.  In respect of a query from a resident regarding a commuted sum in lieu of direct re-provision of community facilities and community access to the pub proposed by the applicant, the Area Planning Manager advised that it hadnot beenpossible,given the time allowed,to open discussionson thismatterwith the applicant.

The Area Planning Manager reiterated his recommendation for refusal on the grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate community space with minimum access arrangements and how the proposed community access would interact with the pub without adversely affecting the viability of the pub.

Judy Wilcox speaking on behalf of the Hopefield Avenue residents raised concerns on the application on grounds of noise nuisance from staff and visitors to the pub and added that the previous owner had consistently failed to adhere to planning conditions including amplified music and hours of operation of the event rooms.  She added that whilst some groups had moved to other sites, the use of the premises by other groups could worsen the problems being experienced by residents.    She also reiterated residents’ objection to the use of the entrance to the pub on the corner of Hopefield Avenue and Salusbury Road.

Kieron Hodgson (applicant’s agent) stated that the proposed development would bring the building, which was currently empty, back into a mixed use scheme. The proposal would re-provide at ground floor level, an improved and bigger room with good general amenity and the conversion of the hitherto noisy first floor event room to residential accommodation.  In response to members’ questions, the applicant’s agent responded that the applicant would be amenable to the suggestion to provide community facility off-site and that the entrance doors on Hopefield Avenue would not be used.

Members discussed the application during which they were minded to grant planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation for refusal subject to clarification on a number of issues.  They therefore decided to defer the application to the next meeting to enable officers to review any off-site contribution and clarify the details of the on site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities.

Voting on the substantive recommendation for refusal for reasons set out in the main report was recorded as follows:

FOR:               Councillor Choudhary                                                                       (1)

AGAINST:      Councillors Marquis, Colacicco, Mahmood, Maurice

                        and Mili Patel                                                                         (5)

ABSTENTION: Councillors Agha and Ernest                                                        (2)

DECISION: Deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to review any off-site contribution and to clarify the details of any site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities.