Agenda item

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for change of use from retail use (Class A1) to micro pub (Class A4), together with installation of a new window to the side elevation and new door to the rear elevation. The officer further clarified that the site is within an existing parade with residential use above and that the application relates to the commercial unit only that has been vacant for some time. It is proposed to divide the existing ground floor into 3 areas where the largest space with a bar would be in the front, toilets would be in the middle and snug at the rear. The existing basement is proposed to be used as a cellar. There are no changes to the front elevation except for the door location.

The presenting officer outlined that 19 objections were received, a petition of 29 signatures against, 28 letters in support and 20 people attended a local meeting. Objections are in regards to the noise and disturbance, increased parking demand, opening hours, risk of setting a precedent and security issues.

Officers’ view is that:

-       the principle of the development would be acceptable

-       it would improve the local economy

-       there is no Class A4 use in the wider parade area,

-       amendments to the proposal to limit access to the rear yard and remove the smoking area will reduce impact on neighbors

-       operational plan and noise assessment reports were submitted, Environmental health officers reviewed it and conditioned details for ventilation system

-       Highways were consulted and estimated that customers would come from local area using public transport and as such they considered that there will be no material impact on the traffic and raised no objections subject to conditions.

Cllr Kelleher outlined that she used to live in the area and that between Hither Green Lane and Hither Green Station there are no drinking establishments.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin raised a question in terms of the residents that are living above the establishment and how many of them have children which raises concerns about noise and opening hours, with further comment that if it is a drinking establishment, there is no need to be open at 8am.

The presenting officer clarified that there are measures that can be conditioned to reduce impact on neighbors, such as restricting opening hours and requiring soundproofing of walls and ceilings and that there should be balance between supporting local economy and impact on residents. 

Cllr Copley pointed out that licensing would be able to restrict the hours when alcohol can be sold.

Cllr Adefiranye pointed out that local people whose life would be impacted should be considered in regards to the proportion of objections received.

The presenting officer clarified that in the local meeting, they had both objecting and supporting comments from local residents.

Cllr Rathbone raised questions about sound insulation and if Environmental Health officers were satisfied with the original and amended proposal, as well as if we know what is the use of the rooms above. The presenting officer clarified that there are 2 aspects, one of which is a condenser unit and that further details can be required through a condition. Another aspect is that there is not enough ceiling space for sound insulation to achieve 10db reduction over the building regulations requirement, though an improvement of 5db could be achieved. Furthermore, the presenting officer clarified the room above is a habitable room and that with the lower level of noise expected in the snug, and a condition to prevent use of an amplified sound system, these measures should be sufficient in reducing noise impact to an acceptable level for the residents.

Cllr Kelleher raised a question as to where the smoking area would be after the amendments. The presenting officer clarified that customers would have to use the footpath in front of the establishment.

The committee received verbal representations on behalf of the applicant. Pete Hadley – agent highlighted that the application was prepared with support of 3 councillors, that a micro pub would contribute to the viability of the parade, that changes were considered in order to address the concerns, access to the rear garden was removed from the application, refuse will be kept in the cellar area, an operational statement was provided, staff will supervise customers and no anti-social behavior would be allowed, and Environmental health officers were satisfied with sound insulation measures and the condenser unit.

Jenny Marsden, resident of Springbank Road highlighted that she is supporting this development, that sound and traffic impacts were mitigated, that opening hours are shorter than some shops on the road, that it would create 7 jobs, be a place for people to gather and improve and prevent further erosion of the street.

Paddy - local resident highlighted that families in the area are desperate for a facility like this, that the parade needs regeneration and investment and it would feed more into local economy.

Councillors did not have any questions.

The committee received verbal representations on behalf of the local residents Mark Glaysher and Ross Cameron.

Ross highlighted that he is a resident above the adjacent unit to the application property and that they are already experiencing a lot of noise from the cab office below. He raised concerns about noise from the busy pub and smoke that would come straight into rooms. It was also pointed out that some impacts were addressed by the applicant later and residents were not informed about it. Furthermore, it was highlighted that this proposal is creating a risk of a breach of human rights to use the property, insulation has to be provided to the bedroom above and assessment for breakout noise should be made as rooms above would not be able to open the windows in the summer due to the noise. It was also highlighted that the snug would overlook the children play area.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin asked for confirmation about noise they are currently experiencing and if noise is their main objection.

Ross clarified that they hear noise from the street and commercial unit below everywhere in their flat, that they had to soundproof their bedroom and confirmed that their main objections are noise and smoke from the outside.

Cllr Silvana Kelleher highlighted that she knows the area well and that the area suffered economically in the 80s and never recovered and asked if local representatives think that this may help bring the life to the area.

Mark pointed out that regeneration of the area is the priority but for the right proposal.

Ross added that there are no empty units on the parade and there isn’t anything that needs further regeneration.

Cllr Clarke (Chair) pointed out that the opening hours proposed by the applicant did not match those in the proposed condition and that a supporting letter from the ward councillors is distributed to everyone at the table.

The presenting officer clarified that the applicant has submitted their opening hours but that officers considered it was appropriate to condition longer opening hours (opening from 8am each day) as this would not cause harm to amenity and would enable the applicant to provide other services such as a café style offer during the day, which would improve the viability and activity of the parade.

Cllr Anwar asked what is the procedure following the approval of the application and is it possible to condition monitoring of the development in 3 or 6 months.

SW clarified that we cannot put a monitoring condition as such, but if a breach of any condition were notified to the planning enforcement team, it would be investigated.

Cllr Adefiranye raised a concern about smoking outside the premises and that smoke would go up to flats and asked if we can put a condition on that.

The presenting officer clarified that the property is on a public street and reasonably busy route and that it would not be possible to construct the condition to prevent smoking on the street.

Cllr Copley added that it is probably an issue for the licensing department when it comes to smoking and drinking outside the premises.

Cllr Kelleher suggested to install an extendable canopy in front of the premises to prevent smoke going to upper flats.

The presenting officer clarified that it is for the applicant to consider such suggestion but that it  cannot be conditioned as part of this application. Furthermore, the presenting officer clarified that there is already a condition in place to prevent people accessing the rear, for refuse to be kept in the basement and that the report covers details such as vacant units on the parade.

Cllr Clarke (Chair) highlighted that noise issues, the snug being under the bedroom, smoke issues and overlooking should be discussed further.

The presenting officer clarified that when it comes to the noise assessment, it is detailed in the addendum report, that Environmental health, considering the size and the use of the room and limited ceiling space accept a 5db improvement as sufficient.

Cllr Clarke (Chair) required further information on overlooking and the presenting officer clarified that the existing window would be the snug window and the rear garden is approx. 15m long to the rear boundary, therefore given the distance it should mitigate overlooking. It was subsequently clarified that the distance from the rear elevation of the application unit to the rear elevation of the dwelling to the rear is 30m.

Cllr Copley suggested conditioning shorter opening hours for the snug, as there is a bedroom above the snug and sufficient sound insulation cannot be provided.

Cllr Paschoud highlighted that the report was clear and thorough and it seems that issues with the snug were addressed, and that the conversation is going beyond planning considerations for the change of use. Furthermore, there are other council services who deal with issues that are raised. Cllr Paschoud suggested adding an informative to the applicant to do their best to prevent smoking outside as we cannot condition it.

Cllr Rathbone and Cllr Copley raised a question about how the wording of the condition for the use and opening hours of the snug would be added and they further suggested not to leave that question to the licensing department and that it should be conditioned within the application. Cllr Rathbone further suggested to reduce one opening hour each day for the snug.

Cllr Anwar expressed his disagreement for a condition on the opening hours of the snug for a reason that evening is the main time when pubs are operating.

The presenting officer highlighted that Condition 7 in the main report covers the opening hours for the whole premises and the area labeled as a snug should be only be opened during certain hours. The presenting officer also clarified that opening of the premises during the day would be preferable to maintain viability.

Cllr Copley suggested to pass approval with condition on opening hours until 10pm for the snug and moved motion to approve officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Adefiranye.

Members voted as follows:

For: Councillors Copley, Adefiranye, Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone.

Against: None

Vote was unanimous.

RESOLVED: Approve application DC/17/104854 subject to a condition restricting opening hours for the snug until 10pm any day.