Agenda item

Site Visit: 9.25am – 9.35am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager Growth & Regeneration, following a site inspection, which sought full planning permission for the material change of use from A2 to A3.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from local residents.

Councillor David Martin representing Southwell Town Council spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Southwell Town Council.

Councillor Bruce Laughton Local Ward Member for Southwell also spoke against the application and commented on the considerable impact this change of use would have on the residents of the flat above.  The bedroom located to the rear of the flat would be overlooked when seated in the restaurant below.  The access to the side of the property was narrow and any deliveries would have to be made at the kerb side potentially on the zig zag area of the road.  The noise element would increase due to bottles being thrown into containers to the rear of the property.  There would be a security issue to the rear of the property as the public would have access.  A substantial tree had also been felled which had affected the amenity value of the residents.  All the services for the previous bank ran through the centre of the flats, including the water tanks for the building.  If an air conditioning unit was installed, that would be to the side of the lounge in the flat and the noise impact would be unacceptable for the residents.

Members considered the application and it was commented that although the application before Committee was for change of use from A2 to A3 – which was for restaurant and café, Members did not have any detail of the end user and it was questioned how the applicant knew that the business would be open from 7am until 11pm as there was no details of the business contained within the report.  It was therefore felt that the application should be refused due to the proposal would result in an adverse impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining and adjacent neighbouring dwellings by virtue of increase noise, odour and disturbance levels resulting from patrons entering and exiting the building and for the duration of their stay exacerbated by the lack of designated smoking area, extra lighting, background music and tables being sited in the front garden area which would encourage people to congregate.

Other Members commented that finding a use for old buildings was difficult and this building if approval was not granted may stand empty for some time.  This building was an opportunity for the hospitality trade, which could be enjoyed by many people if made available.  The residents of the upstairs flat choose to live in the centre of a town where there was likely to be change.  Other Members disagreed and felt that residents of the town should be taken into consideration.

AGREED           (with 9 votes For and 3 votes Against) that contrary to Officer                                recommendation planning permission be refused on the grounds that                        the proposal would result in an unacceptably adverse impact on the                        amenity and privacy of adjoining and adjacent neighbouring dwellings                  by virtue of increased comings and goings and associated noise and                      disturbance levels resulting from patrons entering and exiting the                                building and for the duration of their stay exacerbated by the lack of                 designated smoking area, extra lighting, background music and tables                  being sited in the front garden area which would encourage people                      to congregate.

                        The Planning Committee Chairman asked the Business Manager                            Growth & Regeneration to address the concern raised by the Local                 Ward Member regarding the felling of the large tree to the rear of the                        property and ensure that the works undertaken were authorised.

In accordance with paragraph 12.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.