Agenda item

Conversion of building to 4 no self contained flats.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application to convert a redundant public house (The Forresters Arms) situated within Coundon village, to 4 no self-contained flats (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer which included an aerial photograph of the site, together with a site location plan. Photographs of open space to the south-east of the site, the frontage of the site, east elevations, vehicle access, views from the east and west of the junction along Collingwood Street were also shown.  The proposed site plan detailed four car parking spaces, bin store and a large amenity space which measured 73 square meters. This space was twice as large as the amenity space submitted by way of the initial application. The rear outbuildings would be demolished as part of the development. The Committee were then provided details of the internal layout.

The Committee were informed that planning permission had previously been refused by the Planning Committee in March 2017. The application considered at that time was for the conversion of the building to 6 no. flats. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision which was later dismissed due to the lack of natural light and ventilation to 2 no. central flats and the proposed outdoor amenity space was considered too small for the number of flats. A copy of the appeal decision was included as an appendix to the report. The new application included a larger area for outdoor amenity space as previously mentioned and all flats would have a window, natural light and ventilation.

Letters of objection centred on parking issues, the nature of potential occupants and noise. Councillor C Kay the local member had passed an additional petition, comprising details of people opposing the development, to the Planning Officer, prior to the meeting. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer had reported that the building in its present state had been subject to break-ins, vandalism and arson over a period of several months.

The Committee then heard from Councillor C Kay, the local member for the area.  Councillor Kay informed the Committee that the former public house was a prominent building within the community and reflected on the appeal decision. Despite the revised application, Councillor Kay believed that the harm to the residential amenity of the area would be significantly affected by the proposal in a negative manner, particularly in relation to the nearby one bedroomed elderly person’s bungalows. Councillor Kay felt that paragraph 14 of the NPPF had not been met in this regard.

Councillor Kay made reference to the noise sampling information provided within the report and felt that double glazing and other such works to reduce noise should be carried out prior to the flats being occupied. Vehicular parking in the immediate area was also an issue for concern where many vehicles parked halfway on the footpath. Councillor Kay explained that should one car park incorrectly, others would not be able to access their dedicated parking. This issue, together with a nearby pedestrian island nearby would potentially create a very difficult and hazardous situation. Councillor Kay also informed the Committee that there were currently large numbers of unoccupied, one bedroomed flats in Coundon and felt that there was already adequate provision. A further cause for concern was also raised that should the application proceed there would be a risk that the flats may not be built, highlighting that other development, along similar lines had been previously approved but had never came to fruition. Councillor Kay took on board the issues and concerns raised in relation to the state of the building.

In response, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the condition relating to noise reduction would have to be carried out as part of the development and prior to the flats being occupied. In terms of harm to nearby residents, specifically relating to the nearby one bedroomed bungalows, the Planning Officer explained that residential use of the building had already been established previously. No objections had been raised by Highways Officers and the appeal outcome did not refer to any highways issues. In terms of the occupation of flats and whether the development would proceed, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that this would not be a material planning consideration.

Councillor C Martin agreed with some of the comments made by Councillor Kay and appreciated the concerns expressed by residents and Councillors. Councillor Martin expressed concern at the current state of the building. He felt that the associated noise and footfall of people, had the pub still been in operation, would have created same effect, if not worse, in terms of noise.  Councillor Martin felt that there was adequate parking on site and moved the recommendation detailed in the report.

Councillor Tinsley referred to the floor plans and sought clarification that each of the flats had living and kitchen areas.  Councillor Tinsley concurred with the comments made by Councillor Martin regarding the blight caused by the derelict building and felt that it was in a dangerous condition, with the further potential for it to be set on fire, as had happened elsewhere in the County.  Councillor Tinsley explained that he had viewed the previous application and the appeal decision, and felt that the revised proposals were acceptable, with the significantly larger amenity space and given each flat would have natural light and ventilation.  Councillor Tinsley acknowledged the point made in relation to the nearby old person’s bungalows and felt that the Council owed a duty of care to this property owner.

Councillor J Atkinson commented that the building looked tired and felt that planning permission would be a way forward and seconded the recommendation.

Councillor G Richardson felt that the applicant had addressed the issues raised previously and felt there were no justifiable reasons not to support the recommendation.

In response to a question from Councillor C Wilson regarding noise from the pub nearby, Councillor Clare referred to the information provided by the Planning Officer that the sound survey would require the developer to provide sufficient glazing to ensure that noise would not be an issue.

In response to a query from Councillor L Brown regarding the distance of the proposed development to the one bedroomed bungalows, the Planning Officer confirmed that the distance was 16 metres from the closest point.

Resolved

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.