Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 4/99/00534/FPA to allow a change in opening hours.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina (LM) gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 4/99/00534/FPA to allow a change in opening hours and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer (LM) explained that the application had originally been presented to Committee in December 2022, where Members resolved to defer the proposal to allow Durham Constabulary to present further evidence.  She noted that since that time, Durham Constabulary had withdrawn their objection to the scheme, with details as set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked Parish Councillor S Walker, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor S Walker thanked the Chair and Committee and noted that the City of Durham Parish joined with the City of Durham Trust in strongly opposing the proposals and urged the Committee to refuse the application today.  She noted that firstly the application followed a report from the Parish Council to the County Council’s Planning Enforcement Team as regards the premises unlawfully operating 24 hours per day Thursdays to Saturday.  She noted that Condition 2 of their original planning permission restricted operating hours of the casino to between 0900 and 2200 each day.  She noted that the fact the applicant had knowingly operated outside of these hours demonstrated a scant regard to both planning conditions imposed and the duty of care the operator had to its clientele and the wider community in the city.  She added that it therefore brought into question the fitness of the management to run such an establishment when they had minded wilfully to disregards the agreed operating hours by such a margin.  Parish Councillor S Walker explained there was also the issue that allowing planning conditions to be flouted in such a manner would inevitably result in a loss of credibility for all planning conditions, which should be avoided at all costs.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the applicant’s Agent rightly identified a number of nearby commercial premises located within the immediate vicinity of the application site, however, they had most crucially failed to highlight there were over 30 residential properties within the locality, a number of which would be sensitive receptor of those activities associated with the premises.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that while the Parish Council welcomed the fact that the applicant had dropped their plans for unrestricted trading hours, the Parish Council believed that the premises should be restricted in its operating hours to that of nearby commercial premises, namely Sainsburys Local, being 2300 and The Five Bridges, being midnight.  She noted this would be to ensure no adverse impact to residential amenity to those living on the upper floors of the building and nearby.

Parish Councillor S Walker explained that CDP Policy 29 (e) stated that development must “minimise the impact of development upon the occupants of existing adjacent and nearby properties”; and continued at (f) to say that development must “contribute towards healthy neighbourhoods and consider the health impacts of development and the needs of existing and future users”.  She noted that in addition, Policy 31 relating to amenity and pollution stated that development would be permitted where it could be demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact either individually or cumulatively on health.  She noted the premises operated not only as a gambling centre, but also an ancillary tanning service.  She added that the nature of both of those operations in no way promoted the health and wellbeing of their respective clientele and the fact that the premises had sought to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week made that even less so.  She noted that the Parish Council were concerned that the permission could lead to the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and noted that no noise impact assessment had been carried out, a requirement of DCNP Policy E4.

Parish Councillor S Walker noted that the Parish Council was extremely concerned that the permission would set an unwelcome precedent for future proposals and make them more difficult to resist, adding incrementally to adverse impact upon residential amenity.  She noted the Parish Council utterly rejected the Environmental Health Officer’s conclusion that 0800 opening may also be possible when the application only sought 0900 opening.  She concluded by noting the Parish Council felt the application conflicted with CDP Policies 29 and 31, DCNP E4 and key parts of the NPPF and urged the Committee to refuse the application in its current form.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor S Walker and asked Jonathan Wallace, Agent for the applicant to speak in support of the application.

J Wallace thanked the Chair and Committee and noted Claire Welsh and Steven Suggitt from Luxury Leisure to answer any questions as required.  He noted he would not recap the points made at Committee in December, and noted the deferral was to allow Durham Constabulary to bring forward details in relation to their objection.  He noted, as stated by the Senior Planning Officer (LM) that those objections had now been withdrawn. 

In terms of hours of operations, the operator had apologised one the issue had been highlighted, ceased those hours of operation and submitted the application for variation of conditions as before Members.

J Wallace noted that the focus over the last 20 years had shifted in Durham City, with an increase on the night time economy.  He noted that the applicant owned the upper floors, and they were not residential and clarified that a noise assessment had been submitted.  He explained that the Team operating the premises would ensure noise levels were in line and noted no amplified sounds.  He added that customer numbers were similar to that of other sites operated by Luxury Leisure and around no more than 10 per hour.  He added that the majority were single individuals and not groups and therefore less likely to be an issue in terms of noise.  He concluded by noting the proposals would result in two new jobs and that given no objections from the Council’s NAT or Durham Constabulary that the Committee would approve the application.

The Chair thanked J Wallace and asked the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor J Quinn asked as regards the ‘accidental’ 24 hour operation.  The Chair asked J Wallace to respond.  J Wallace noted that the management of the premises at the time had noted another similar premises nearby was operating longer and in error extended the hours.  He added that once this had been known by Luxury Leisure such operation ceased and a planning application was submitted.  Councillor J Quinn asked what safeguards were in place to ensure such an error was not repeated.  J Wallace noted that should approval be granted, the details of permitted hours would be communicated to those operating the premises clearly and as regards the need to strictly adhere to those times.

Councillor J Quinn noted when the application was for 24 hour operation he could not have supported it, however, with the reduced hours and withdrawn objections from the Police he would move that the application be approved.

Councillor J Elmer noted that, given the levels of anti-social behaviour and crime in the city centre, opening until 0200 meant there was more temptation for those coming out of pubs and clubs to gamble and potential for those who may lose money to be in an angry frame of mind when exiting the premises.  He noted the Police had withdrawn their objections, however, he felt the Committee needed to look at each application on its own merits and he felt that he could not see any justification for the extension of the opening hours, and he agreed with the Parish Council on restricting the opening hours and therefore he would propose that the Committee refuse the application. 

The Chair noted that the Police and Parish Council had not objected to other gambling premises and asked for clarification from the Senior Planning Officer (LM).  The Senior Planning Officer (LM) noted the Chair was correct and that 0200 opening hours had been agreed by the Environmental Health Officer, the application was deferred for Police to present further evidence in terms of crime statistics relating to North Road.  She noted that upon further investigation by the Police they then withdrew their objections in relation to this specific property / application.  The Chair noted that if the Committee was minded to refuse, given the Police having withdrawn their objection, he felt that would have significant weight at any appeal of the decision.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that any specific response from consultees, including Durham Constabulary would always be taken into account, however, that did preclude Officers taking a different view, nor the Committee taking a different view.

Councillor K Shaw noted he would second the recommendation for approval put forward by Councillor J Quinn.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.