BOROUGH OF POOLE – PLANNING COMMITTEE – 15 APRIL 2010
BOROUGH OF POOLE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
15 APRIL 2010
The Meeting commenced at 9:30am and concluded at 1:13pm
Present:
Councillor Mrs Stribley (Chairman)
Councillor Mrs Walton (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors Allen, Burden, Mrs Butt, Eades (substituting for Councillor Mrs Long) (until 12:45pm), Trent, Wilkins and Wilson
Also present:
Councillors Bulteel, Mrs Evans, Matthews and Mrs Moore
Members of the public present: 20 approximately
PC96.10APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs Long.
PC97.10MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the last Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25th March 2010, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
PC98.10DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Councillors declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 4, because the site was in close proximity to a member of staff’s home.
All Councillors declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 8, due to the Applicant being a member of staff.
All Councillors declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 3, because the site was in close proximity to a Councillor’s home.
Councillor Allen declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 2, having received written representations.
Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 5, having received written representations.
Councillor Mrs Walton declared a personal interest in Plans List Items 2 and 5, having received written representations.
Councillor Wilkins declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 2, having received written representations.
Councillor Wilson declared a personal interest in Plans List Item 2, having received written representations.
PC99.10SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION
(i)The Chairman informed the Meeting that it would be necessary to arrange a Special Meeting of the Planning Committee in order to consider the Talbot Village Trust Application 00/08824/084/P.
It was noted that dates were being considered week commencing 24th May 2010 and that Members would be notified as soon as a date and venue had been arranged.
(ii)Stephen Thorne, Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, informed the Meeting that, following the Pitt Review, and the IDeA Peer Review, one of the outstanding issues was the standardising of Meeting Times. As a result, an email from the Chairman had been sent to all Members of the Committee suggesting that the item be discussed under Urgent Business.
Members were reminded that the Peer Review concluded that, “the Agenda for Planning Meetings needs to be managed to ensure it is fit for purpose, meetings that run for more than 3 hours are not efficient and impact on effective decision making. This may result in more frequent meetings or a higher number of delegations. There are advantages in having a standard meeting time that Applicants and Residents can recognise and make provision for in their day if they wish to attend”.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services stated that there were two options, daytime meetings or evening meetings. He added that, following consideration, daytime meetings were preferable, but with a start time of 2pm. The advantages were as follows:
- Site visits could take place in the morning of Committee dates, therefore minimising the inconvenience to Members.
- It released a day a month in the Corporate Calendar.
- It minimised Officer resource time in terms of overtime and time off in lieu.
- It allowed other officers of the Council to be available if required whilst the Committee was in session (such as Legal, Strategic Housing).
- Decisions were made at a reasonable time of the day.
- Professional costs to Residents and Applicants were minimised, i.e., not paying overtime costs.
- Older members of the Community did not like evening meetings as they preferred to travel in daylight.
- Security personnel were already on duty and could help when emotions ran high.
- Utility costs were minimised.
In summary, the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services stated that this option was a good compromise and had the ability to be flexible whilst minimising costs.
Councillor Mrs Walton stated that she supported the proposal as there were considerable merits in standardising the start times of Planning Meetings.
Councillor Allen, stated that he had not read his emails and consequently objected to this item being “bounced” on him at the Meeting. He added that such a subject required much thought and he had been unable to give it the consideration it deserved.
Councillor Eades informed the meeting that for most members of the public, they only attended a Planning Committee Meeting once in their life and, consequently, the start time of the Meeting was immaterial. He added, however, that for the vast majority of people that work, taking time off during the day would always be difficult.
Councillor Mrs Butt stated that she supported the proposals and added that Members should be mindful of costs, staffing issues and the availability of outside expertise and suggested that a six month trial period be instigated and monitored.
Councillor Wilson informed the Member that PlanningMeetings should be restricted to 3 hours, and, if necessary, twice monthly meetings should be introduced. He added that a 2pm start time would be unacceptable to him due to other commitments, but stated that consideration could be given to either 10am or 12pm start times.
Councillor Wilkins stated that he supported a standardised start time and 2pm was reasonable, he added that the suggestion of a six month trial period seemed sensible.
The Chairman stated that members of the public rarely attended Planning Meetings and like with other pressures, had often to deal with issues during the working day. The chairman reminded the Meeting that a survey of attendees was carried out approximately 18 months ago and the consensus of opinion was slightly in favour of daytime meetings.
Councillor Trent informed the Meeting that he did not have any strong feelings about the start time, only that 2pm was difficult for Members who had to have their evening meal at a set time for medical reasons. He added that he would prefer either a 9:30am or a 6pm start time.
On being put to the vote, the recommendation to amend the start time of Planning Meetings was LOST.
Voting:For – 4Against – 5 Abstentions – 0
Councillor Allen voted against the proposal.
RECOMMENDED that the start time, alternating between 9:30am and 6pm should remain.
Voting:For – 5Against – 4 Abstentions – 0
Councillor Allen voted For the proposal.
PC100.10PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered Planning Applications as set out in the Schedule of Minutes and dealt with them therein.
CHAIRMAN
APPENDIX
SCHEDULE TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
15 APRIL 2010
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
ITEM NO / 01CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells
SITE ADDRESS / 5 Highmoor Road
APPLICATION NO. / APP/10/00112/F
REGISTERED / 3 February, 2010
AGENT / Anders Roberts & Assoc
APPLICANT / Whitelock Group Ltd
DEVELOPMENT / Demolish existing building and erect 1 block of 9 apartments with basement parking, bin & cycle stores.
WARD / Penn Hill
Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, informed the Meeting that the Application had been deferred to a future Meeting.
______
ITEM NO / 02CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells
SITE ADDRESS / Ground Floor Restaurant Unit, Aqua West Quay Road Poole
APPLICATION NO. / APP/10/00151/C
REGISTERED / 10 February, 2010
AGENT / Tanner and Tilley Planning Ltd
APPLICANT / Lee Well Catering Ltd
DEVELOPMENT / Partial Change of Use of Restaurant Unit to allow hot food takeaway.
WARD / Poole Town
The Members noted that the Application had been brought before the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Mrs Evans and Bulteel due to neighbours’ concerns.
Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, drew the Meeting’s attention to the Addendum Sheet and stated that 3 additional letters of representation and a Petition of 65 signatures objecting to the proposed development had been received on grounds that it would materially harm residents’ amenities, would generate noise disturbance and encourage anti-social behaviour. Further reference had been made to the lack of access rights onto the Asda car park.
The Senior Planning officer stated that the Agent had responded, stating that no material harm to residential amenities would occur and that provided staff and customers paid to park on the surface car park of Asda, then no breach of the legal agreement for the car park would occur.
Members’ attention was drawn to the additional conditions in the Addendum sheet requiring that Take-Away use should be ancillary to the main restaurant.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the Meeting that the proposed hot food Take-Away would be sited adjacent to the approved restaurant on the ground floor of the Aqua building on West Quay Road. He reminded Members that the building accommodated 96 flats with secure underground car parking.
The Meeting’s attention was drawn to the site plans and Restaurant/Take-Away layout as appended to the Report. Particular reference was made to the area highlighted by a red line detailing the proposals for the Take-Away.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed change of use would utilise the fume extraction equipment to be installed as part of the kitchen serving the Restaurant. He added that the use of the premises as a restaurant (as approved) would have a greater impact upon residential amenities from noise transition than the proposed partial use.
The Meeting noted that the site would be located adjacent to the Asda car park and therefore amenities were already affected by traffic movements, and that the proposed use would not generate sufficient vehicle movements to exasperate the situation to the extent which would be contrary to adopted planning policies.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the Meeting that the alleged gatherings of youths in the Asda car park was a management issue for the freeholder of the car park but added that, with increased natural surveillance of patrons to the proposed Take-Away, opportunities for anti-social behaviour should be reduced.
In addition, he stated that the location of the proposed Take-Away was not en route from the town centre and as such, would be unlikely to generate footfall which, in turn, might lead to rubbish being deposited nearby.
Mr Thacker and Mr McGregory, objectors, expressed their views, including:-
* Lack of parking for customers
* danger due to the lack of pavement areas
* increased litter, rat infestation
* anti-social behaviour
* vagrants
* a Take-Away would exacerbate existing problems
* adverse effects to the quality of life of Aqua residents
* cooking smells
* numerous Take-Aways already exist in the Poole Town Centre
* Is this the vision for Poole?
Mr Williams, Tanner and Tilley Planning Limited, Agents for the Applicant, expressed his views, including:
* No planning objections to proposals
* quality restaurant seeking to agree off-site sales
* adding to the viability of the area
* no external changes to the building
* parking – same as for the restaurant
* large car park opposite the site, subject to parking charges
* an additional facility for Aqua residents
* No additional material harm
* Compromise – reduce closing time to 10pm
* Noise and vehicle movements would be minimal
* Regeneration area, vibrant, mixed use
Ward Councillor Mrs Evans, objected to the proposal and expressed her views, including:
* Aqua building – iconic gateway to the Town and consequently should be the flagship of Poole
* Pressures on parking
* Increased traffic movements
* Odours from the Take-Away
* Increased anti-social behaviour
* Increased litter
* Is this the vision for Poole?
Ward Councillor Bulteel, endorsed the views of Councillor Mrs Evans.
A Member requested more details regarding the proposed Take-Away, and in particular the kind of clientele it would attract. The Meeting was informed that the Take-Away would be a high-class fish and chips establishment, well known to the area. The Member added that proposals for the remainder of the site, included a Travel Lodge Hotel, which would add an extra 300/400 vehicles to the area.
In response to claims that the Take-Away would attract customers leaving bars and clubs, a Member stated that this should not occur, bearing in mind that the Take-Away would close at 10pm.
Members continued to discuss the proposal and felt that the Scheme was a test case for Poole and stressed the need that the Town should attract viable, diverse establishments, willing to invest in the area.
Following a query from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the operating hours contained in condition No.2 applied 7 days a week.
In summing up, Mr Thacker and Mr McGregory, objectors, stated that the proposals were the wrong vision for Poole and as such, an iconic building such as Aqua deserved better.
In summing up, Mr Williams, Agent for the Applicant, stated that there was no charge in the Asda car park after 6pm in the evening, and during the day parking was limited to 4 hours (subject to charge). He added that it was in the interest of the proprietor to operate a well-run establishment within a clean environment.
A Member requested that Officers investigate an additional condition requiring the Take-Away to operate regular litter patrols in the vicinity of the establishment.
RESOLVED that the Application be granted with conditions, subject to the following:-
1. GN150 (Time Expiry 3 Years (Standard))2. RC070 (Restriction on Hours of Use/Deliveries)
The use hereby permitted shall not operate and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site otherwise than between 1000 and 2200 on Mondays to Sundays inclusive, including Bank and other national Public Holidays.
Reason -
In the interest of the amenities of adjoining and nearby residential properties and in accordance with Policy NE1 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Adopted 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction September 2007).
3. NP080 (Fume Extraction Equipment)
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactments thereof, the takeaway use hereby approved shall be used ancillary to the main Restaurant use only, and no time used separately without formal planning permission first being obtained.
Reason –
To minimise the disturbance caused to residential amenities in accordance with policy NE1 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Adopted 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction 2007).
5. Prior to the completion of the development the Applicants shallsubmit to the Local Planning Authority for approval a Strategy of refuse collection of both commercial and clientele refuse, and thereafter continue to use the premises in accordance with the agreed Strategy, unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Reason –
To ensure litter is controlled in the interest of visual amenity of the area, and in accordance with Policy NE1 of the Poole Local Plan First Alteration Adopted 2004 (as amended by Secretary of State Direction 2007).
Voting:For – Unanimous
ITEM NO / 03CASE OFFICER / Darryl Howells
SITE ADDRESS / Land adj to 18 Bournemouth Road, Poole, BH14 0ES
APPLICATION NO. / APP/10/00242/C
REGISTERED / 26 February, 2010
AGENT / Richard Coleman & Partners Ltd
APPLICANT / U Mix Ltd
DEVELOPMENT / Change of use for forecourt to no. 20 Bournemouth Road to seating area to be used ancillary to no. 18 Bournemouth Road and erection of a timber decked area.
WARD / Parkstone
Members noted that the Application was brought before the Committee because the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services did not consider it prudent to exercise delegated powers due to the proximity to a Councillor’s home.
The Application had been subject of a site visit by Members on 14th April 2010.
Darryl Howells, Senior Planning Officer, drew the Meeting’s attention to the Addendum sheet where a summary of letters of representation had been detailed both for and against the Application.
The Senior Planning Officer provided Members with a description of the site, making reference to the site plan appended to the Report. He added that the main issues were the impact upon visual amenities, in particular the setting of the Ashley Cross Conservation Area and nearby residential amenities by reason of noise disturbance.
Members were provided with the relevant planning history and, in particular plans of the previous scheme refused in January 2010. The Meeting continued by discussing the current proposals and, in particular, the location of the proposed decking to both neighbouring properties and the bar, Mai Tai.
Mr Coleman, Applicant, expressed his views, including:
* Complete review of proposals,now included increased planting
* Security staff and bar personnel to “police” the area
* Decking area closed to the public outside of opening hours
* Decking area only accessible to bar users
* Little impact on local residents
* Happy to work with the Community
* Provided added value to the area
* Support from local businesses
A Member stated that the proposals were better than doing nothing, as at present the area was bleak, dark and dirty.
Members stated that during the recent site visit it was noted that one of the existing posts was sited on the highway and consequently would need to be moved.
Notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Members felt that the principle of decked area on the forecourt was acceptable however considered the proposal size and position being remote from the Mai Tai’ needed amendments. Members suggested repositioning the decked area closer and modifying it so the decked area did not extend pass the bus shelter would be desirable.
A Member stated that he believed a precedent had already been set by other Bars in the area incorporating outside decking areas and proposed that a 12 month review period be added to the Conditions.