Agenda item

Change of use of restaurant to local convenience shop together with extension, new shop front, and external plant and bin enclosure.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman 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 Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Use Class C4) including single storey rear extension, cycle parking and bin storage and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted in respect of consultation that no objections had been received from statutory or internal consultees, subject to conditions.  She explained there had been five letters of received in total, including from Councillors L Fenwick, S McDonnell and Graeme Morris MP and residents.  She added there had been four letters of objection received, with issues raised including noise and light pollution, parking issues, impact upon amenity, potential anti-social behaviour and litter.  She added one letter of support had been submitted supporting the application for the benefits it would bring to the area for residents.

The Planning Officer noted that the application was felt to be in accordance with Policies 6 and 9 of the CDP and it was not considered that there would be significant detrimental impact upon residential amenity or highways safety to warrant refusal and therefore the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor S McDonnell, Local Member, so speak in relation to the application.

Councillor S McDonnell thanked the Chair and Committee and explained she knew the area very well, having previously lived within walking distance to the York Road shops.  She explained she did not support the application as she had to consider the impact upon the elderly and vulnerable residents living in the surrounding area, some living directly opposite to the site.  She noted that a convenience store had been located at the corner of the precinct, next to the Fish Shop, with the Fish Shop operating until 2100-2200, with the shop closing at 2000, noting it had been an off-licence.  She explained that youths had congregated at those shops, and it had been very intimidating with many locals not going to the shops after dark.  She added that it had appeared to many as if that shop had been run down, in terms of stock, and then had closed.

Councillor S McDonnell noted that the twelve residents opposite the application site suffered already in terms of traffic, with bright lights from the building and from cars coming and going glaring into residents’ windows.  She added this issue had been raised with Environmental Health.  She noted there were two access points into the site, from York Road and Bedford Place, with around 99 percent using the York Road entrance/exit, hence headlights glaring into the bungalows opposite.

Councillor S McDonnell noted she understood the applicant wishing to diversify their operation and have operating hours of 0700 to 0000, however, she noted other nearby shops operated either 0700 to 2200 or 1200 to 0000.  She emphasised the impact on residents from the lights flashing across their windows.  She explained she had sat in the bungalows with residents and had witnessed firsthand the huge difference those lights made to the elderly and vulnerable residents of those bungalows and asked the Committee if they would want to live with the impact of those lights at their homes.

The Chair thanked Councillor S McDonnell and asked Councillor L Fenwick to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Fenwick noted that she had objected to the change of use application in terms of the impact it would have on the twelve bungalows opposite the site.  She noted those residents were elderly and some were very vulnerable, and while a shop was welcomed, the natural position would have been within the existing shopping parade, which was set back and had its own parking spaces.  She explained there had been relatively little impact from the public house, some disturbance when events were held, however a shop opposite to the bungalows would represent constant light and noise pollution.  She added that, as was the case in many other similar areas within Peterlee, there was the risk of anti-social behaviour, impacting upon the health and wellbeing of local residents.

Councillor L Fenwick noted comments from local resident, Coral Fisher, who had asked if she could present her comments to the Committee.  Councillor L Fenwick noted C Fisher asked that the Committee took a moment to consider the application and the needs and amenity of those living opposite the site.  It was noted that the proposals would have a big impact upon C Fisher and her neighbours, with slides being shown demonstrating the impact of headlights on those properties.  Councillor L Fenwick explained that C Fisher felt there was already impact from the pub, however, that would only get worse should the application for a shop be granted, with non-stop traffic and increased lighting from the shop itself.  It was added that residents opposite did not want 24 hour, seven days a week impact and Councillor L Fenwick noted who would want their curtains closed from 1400, with residents not wanting to feel isolated in their homes. 

Councillor L Fenwick explained as regards medical issues that would be exacerbated as a result of increased light pollution, and highlighted other issues including with parking, traffic and that residents felt the application was contrary to Policies 6 and 31 of the CDP in terms of impact upon the health and wellbeing of residents and their amenity.

Councillor L Fenwick explained that C Fisher had noted that it had been stated there were 46 parking spaces, however, there would only be three rows of 14 spaces, the remaining being lost to the proposed extension.  The previous referral to Environmental Health in respect of light issues was noted and the issues of concern raised were reiterated, being light and noise, anti-social behaviour, fear of residents in terms of going out.  She concluded by noting that there were no other shops with bungalows opposite within Peterlee, adding a new shop was welcomed, just not in that location, and that the wellbeing of residents living opposite should be taken into account, with many of those properties having been adapted specifically for those residents.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Fenwick, and C Fisher, and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor D Oliver thanked all for their comments and noted that shops within residential location could be source of traffic and present issues residents, however, Environmental Health had not objected in respect of the application.  He noted shops within his area were viewed positively as an asset and had heard nothing that would suggest the proposals before Members would be anything different.  He added that, with the bigger picture in terms of promoting sustainable development, he would be strongly minded to approve the application.

Councillor D McKenna noted he was finding it hard to see any reasons to refuse the change of use application, though understood the issues raised and the impact on residents.  He asked if there could be any better solution, in terms of screening the light from headlights as described.  He added it was not possible to predict whether anti-social behaviour would occur.

Councillor A Bell understood the impact on residents, however, the use opposite was commercial use, and it was the case that some development would take place.  He echoed the comments from Councillor D McKenna in terms of any potential screening and would second the motion for approval by Councillor D Oliver.

Councillor D Oliver left the meeting at 12.44pm

Councillor L Brown asked as regards the two entrances/exits and whether there was any scope for a one-way system to prevent lights flashing across the bungalows.

Councillor J Elmer asked if there was any scope to design out potential anti-social behaviour, by not introducing places to sit, the addition of CCTV and so on.

The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings noted that conditions relating to lighting presented an opportunity to control those elements in terms of timings and locations.  In terms of concerns relating to additional advertising signage, they would be subject to separate future consent, and noted for reference that other nearby shops did not operate backlit signage.  She added that a condition in relation to CCTV could be added if Members were so minded.

The Principal DM Engineer noted that any one-way system would need to be voluntary by the applicant as the car park is not part of the highway to which the legislation applies, therefore it would not be possible to enforce and would be open for drivers to act contrary in any case.  He added any one-way system could conflict with parking in the north-east corner and could be at the cost of additional spaces.  He reiterated that it would be voluntary at the landowner’s discretion, and in any case likely would not be adhered to which could create road safety issues.

The Chair noted the issue of potential screening raised by Councillor D McKenna.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the entrance was open and the area in question for screening was not part of the proposed scheme and noted it would not be reasonable to make a requirement by way of condition.

The Chair noted the application had been moved and seconded and noted the comments from Councillor J Elmer in relation to CCTV.

Councillor L Fenwick noted the main issue raised related to light on the bungalows opposite and that some screening may help.  Councillor J Elmer noted that the grassed area to the front of the bungalows had three tall trees that headlights would easily shine through, and felt some hedging across that area, being council owned, could be useful.

Councillor A Surtees noted she was familiar with the area and noted that there would always be issues with lights from vehicles in the area, and possibly a small metal frame could help deflect the light from parked vehicles.  Councillor L Brown noted she felt the Local Councillors could approach the applicant, if the application was approved, in terms of a one-way system.

The Chair noted the suggestions in terms of screening.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the red line boundary of the application did not extend beyond land owned by the applicant and the land suggested was Council owned and therefore any such screening as suggested would fall outside of this application.  There would be an opportunity to secure fencing outside the planning process, any fence 1 metre or less would not need planning permission.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that the proposer had left the meeting, however, the proposal for approval had already been moved and seconded.

The application had been moved for approval by Councillor D Oliver, seconded by Councillor A Bell and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

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