Agenda item

Councillor Timothy Pearman declared an interest in the application in that he knew the applicant.  Councillor Pearman left the meeting room for the entirety of the application and took no part in the debate nor vote.

The application had been reported to the Planning Committee for determination because the application fell outside the scheme of delegation to Officers.

Officers presented their report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to pages 37 to 41 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.

The application was for 2A Light House Works, Feckenham Road, Astwood Bankand sought the change of use from shop and cafe/ Restaurant (Class E) to a bar and café(Class E), The application also sought the permanent addition of an outdoor seating area.

Officers detailed to Members the contents of the update report which Members had the opportunity to read.

Officers highlighted to Members that this was a retrospective application and detailed the current site layout as detailed on pages 39 and 40 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack

The location of the site was detailed on page 38 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack. Officers also highlighted that nearby residential areas were within 10m of the seating area and detailed that due to the proximity of residential sites it was deemed that the application would cause a significant noise disturbance.

At the invitation of the Chair three individuals spoke in favour of the application, Councillor Craig Warhurst (Ward Councillor), Mr Kevin Flinders and Mr Craig Steet (Applicant).

Members then clarified the following points with the Officers

• That Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) had submitted no representation and had no complaints with regard to noise nuisance. Officers clarified that when speaking of noise, they were referring to the potential detrimental impact on amenity due to the proximity to the residential sites.
• The current lawful use of the property would be the ground floor as a café/restaurant and the first floor as a shop, and that should planning permission be refused, then the applicant would have to return to this usage if an appeal was not upheld.

Members then discussed the application which Officers had recommended be refused.

Members expressed the opinion that the building was a community hub in Feckenham and that there were very few amenities within the area, they also supported the owner making use of a locally listed building and providing employment for the local area.

Members highlighted there was a lack of a significant number of complaints (there were 3 complaints received) and that there had been little objection from consultees including WRS, Licencing, and the Council’s Conservation Officer.

Officers reminded Members that permissions were attached to the building and not an individual. Therefore, Members needed to be mindful that although the current owner may not have plans to make full use of that which was permitted, it did not mean that they or any subsequent owners would not do so in the future, which could lead to an increase in complaints and noise disruption.

An Alternative Recommendation was proposed by Councillor Clayton that the application be approved, the Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor Baker-Price. There was then some discussion regarding conditions which could be attached to the Alternative Recommendation, the suggestions included, obscured windows, a full plans list and delegated powers to Officers.

On being put to a vote it was

Resolved that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be granted with the following conditions:

·       Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted information (plans list)

·       An obscuring glazing treatment scheme to be submitted for windows