Agenda item

Change of use of building from betting office (Sui Generis) to drinking establishment (Sui Generis).

The Planning Officer, Mark Sandford 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 change of use of building from betting office (Sui Generis) to drinking establishment (Sui Generis) and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Town Councillor Audrey Laing, representing Peterlee Town Council to speak in respect of the application.

Town Councillor A Laing thanked the Chair and Committee for the opportunity to speak on the application.  She noted that there were many concerns she felt as a local Councillor and resident of Peterlee, firstly that there were enough bars, restaurants and takeaways within the town centre, and while she would generally support new businesses, she opposed this application.  She explained that there were issues of anti-social behaviour and violence within the town centre, associated with alcohol, and noted the close proximity of the application site to a GP Surgery, Job Centre and Church, noting the impact on younger and older people.  She noted NPPF Part 8 promoted Healthy Communities and planning had an important role in helping to maintain and encourage inclusive communities.  She added that the proposed change of use was contrary to that goal. 

Town Councillor A Laing noted CDP Policy 31 noted that development was permitted where no negative impact either directly or cumulatively could be demonstrated.  She noted that alcoholism impacted all elements of society and unfortunately could lead to violence against women.  She added that out of 76 risk factors it was found that alcohol was number three in terms of the impact on health, only after obesity and smoking.  She asked Members to refuse the application in terms of the impacts on health referred to.

The Chair thanked Town Councillor A Laing and asked Councillor D Howarth, Local County Councillor, to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor D Howarth thanked the Chair and noted she represented Peterlee East, the division in which the application was proposed.  She reiterated the points made by Town Councillor A Laing in that the NPPF looked to achieve healthy, safe, inclusive lifestyles.  She noted the already existing high levels of alcoholism, anti-social behaviour and domestic violence in Peterlee and noted that another club was not appropriate. 

She explained that the recently prepared Masterplan for Peterlee, last year, had bid for Levelling Up funding and asked Members to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor D Howarth and asked Matthew Lee, Agent for the applicant and Sean Sayers, the applicant to speak in support of the application.

M Lee noted the Peterlee Masterplan and the need for town centre investment.  He added that there was some unwilling to invest in the town and it had been noted there was a need for more leisure facilities.  He explained that the proposals were not for a ‘run of the mill’ drinking establishment, rather it would echo the comments from the Officer within his report, that the proposals were policy compliant and was a use town centres were designated for.  S Sayers noted he had been a resident of Peterlee for 50 years and his vision for his establishment ‘Ales and Tales’ was for a unique establishment for Peterlee, with a micropub, cocktail bar and coffee bar.  He added that there would be no TV screens or pool tables, rather ambient music and also live performances from local musicians, including from the nearby East Durham College.  He noted the establishment would operate a strict Challenge 25 policy and also joint the local Pubwatch and work with the Council’s Licensing Team.  He noted that there would be no issues with any congestion, with ample parking in the areas and good links to the bus network.  He reiterated he hoped for a unique offer and explained there would only be nine drinking establishments for a population of over 30,000 residents, with other comparable towns such as Seaham and Chester-le-Stret having 17 and 34 per 30,000.  He concluded by noting the numbers at Peterlee were not excessive and he would ask that Members grant planning permission.

The Chair thanked the applicant and his agent and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor L Brown asked if it was correct that there was no cumulative impact when looking at drinking establishment from a planning perspective and noted paragraph 32 referred to restrictions, but she could not see those mirrored within the conditions.  The Principal Planning Officer noted no such cumulative impact, with the use proposed being an accepted town centre use.  He noted that the Environmental Health Officer’s response was set out verbatim within the report, noting some confusion in relation to sui generis use.

Councillor L Fenwick noted she was a Councillor for Peterlee and asked if there would be alcoholic and non-alcohol drinks and whether children would be permitted entry. 

S Sayers noted that it would be the same as any other drinking establishment, with children requiring to be accompanied by a responsible adult.  Councillor L Fenwick noted the points raised by Councillor D Howarth in terms of smoking outside in the pedestrian areas.

Councillor C Kay noted he was struggling with the application, he has listened to the statements from Town Councillor A Laing and Local Member, D Howarth, however, despite his own experience of the impact of alcoholism on a family member, a town centre location was the natural location for such an application and noted that problems within an area were not always the responsibility of a licence holder.

Councillor D Sutton-Lloyd noted he understood the points raised by the speakers and Councillor C Kay and asked as the activity next door, the Catch 22 College.  Councillor K Shaw noted that paragraph 52 of the report noted Policy 31, no development being permitted if there was impact/harm.  He asked how that related to the college next door.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of residential amenity, there was no impact as was a tone centre location.  In terms with the compatibility with those aged 16-18, one would expect such an establishment to be managed correctly in terms of underage sales and so on in order to satisfy Policy 31.  He reminded Members that Planning Guidance states that policy should not look to mirror other regulations that may apply.

Councillor I Roberts noted the impact of alcoholism and noted that Peterlee was an area requesting a treatment centre to help those suffering from addiction.  She noted the other activities in the area, cafes, bingo and the Church, she felt there was a need to protect against alcohol harms.

Councillor J Elmer noted that cumulative impact would not usually be considered under Policy 31, however, it was noted that the town had a large impact already in terms of alcohol.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that there was no cumulative impact in relation to drinking establishments, as there was for hoot food takeaways, and reiterated Policy 31 referred to residential amenity and it was not felt there was an over-proliferation of drinking establishments and it was a town centre location.  Councillor J Elmer felt that there should be some way to make a link to the levels of alcoholism in the town, however, the applicant had been very positive in his support of his application.  He asked as regards any controls that could be put in place via planning.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the sui generis use and all such uses described fell within that use. 

Councillor L Brown noted, as a Chair of Licensing, that such applications must be considered be Licensing in terms of a premises licence and was an important check and balance in terms of such drinking establishments.  Councillor S Deinali noted her concerns as regards the Catch 22 College being located next door.

Councillor L Brown moved approval of the application as per the Officer’s recommendation, she was seconded by Councillor C Kay.

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report.

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt that the concerns of the Committee could be fed into the licensing process, the Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) noted that it was a separate process.  Councillor L Brown noted that Planning Officers were consulted as part of the licensing process.