Agenda item

The Committee will be requested to consider an application for planning permission,

details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Planning Committee considered planning application 20/0187 that sought permission for alterations to the front elevation and use of ground floor premises as altered as an adult gaming centre.

Ms Parker, Head of Development Management, provided the Committee with an overview of the application and presented the proposed site layout, location and elevation plans and aerial views of the site.  She referred to the Update Note that included an additional objection received from the operator of the adjoining amusement centre and a brochure submitted by the applicant’s agent. 

The Committee was referred to a previous appeal decision that had granted planning permission for use of the adjoining property as an amusement centre as the Planning Inspector had concluded that it was in accordance with key policies in the Development Plan and was situated in an appropriate location.  He also considered that it would not undermine the character and function of the secondary shopping area. 

Ms Parker advised that the premises had been vacant since July 2017 and in her view bringing it back into beneficial use would weigh heavily in favour of the proposal.  Ms Parker referred to emerging Policy DM13 that sought to prevent an overconcentration of this type of use but as this was in an early stage of development limited weight could be attached to it.  Ms Parker referred to the objection regarding opening hours and advised that the hours had been agreed by the Council’s Environmental Protection team and referred to conditions relating to noise that would be attached to the permission if granted.  Ms Parker concluded by advising on her view that given the character of Abingdon Street  there would be no adverse impact from the proposal, if granted, on the character of the Conservation Area.

Mr Etchells, Agent acting on behalf of several traders in the vicinity who had raised objections to the proposal, spoke against the application.  He referred to Policy SR6, which in his view had failed to be given sufficient weight in the officer’s report. He also presented his view on each of the material considerations contained within the officer’s report and questioned the level of employment benefits that would be gained from the proposal.  He also referred to the Inspector’s conclusion in relation to the previous appeal decision that in his view did not support the recommendation being made to Committee on the current planning application.

Mr Deegan, Agent acting on behalf of the Applicant, spoke in support of the application He referred to the location of the premises within the secondary shopping area and extended town centre conservation area and its Sui Generis lawful use. He also referred to the benefits of the proposal and confirmed the creation of a minimum of five jobs, should the application be granted. In his view, the proposal complied with all local policies, including Policy SR6.

Ms Parker reminded Members that issues of commercial competition were not relevant planning considerations.  

The Committee considered the application and raised several concerns with the proposal.  It referred to the aim of emerging Policy DM13 that sought to prevent an over-concentration of adult gaming centres.  Whilst acknowledging the limited weight that could be attached to an emerging policy, Members raised concerns regarding the potential impact on the area from an additional adult gaming centre, particularly in close proximity to nearby areas of deprivation.  The Committee also questioned the level of security that would be in place, particularly in view of the location.  It also considered the current regeneration of the area that was intended to provide a link to the town centre, increase footfall and encourage families back into the resort. With regards to the length of time that the unit had been vacant, the Committee noted the potential for this to have been caused in part due to the long-term redevelopment of the area. 

Ms Parker, in response, clarified that the unit was located within the town centre boundary but identified as a secondary shopping area, however the adoption of Policy DM13 would result in a much stricter approach.   She also referred to the safeguards that would be in place to prevent noise disturbance.  In response to concerns raised by the Committee regarding the potential lack of opportunity for objections to have been raised Ms Parker advised on the notification of the planning application that had been undertaken which was in accordance with Government requirements.

In view of the concerns raised, the Committee was minded to refuse the application but requested that the decision be deferred to the next meeting to enable the Head of Development Management to submit a further report that included consideration of the possible reasons for refusal that had been raised at the meeting.

Resolved:  That the Committee was minded to refuse the application but that the decision be deferred to the next meeting and that in the meantime the Head of Development Management be requested to submit a further report to include consideration of the possible reasons for refusal based on the Committee’s concerns.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.