Agenda item

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 16/0004 for the external alterations including replacement steps to the front, enclosure of the forecourts and dormer extension, erection of rear dormer, single storey rear extension and extraction flue to the rear, and use of ground and lower ground floors of 199 Promenade and lower ground floor of 201 Promenade as altered as a restaurant within Use Class A3; and use of the remainder of both properties as 11 self-contained holiday flats and manager's accommodation.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and site layout plans.  He advised Members that a previous application in 2011 for the use of part of the ground floor of 201 Promenade as a café/restaurant had been refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed due to the impact on the amenity of the occupiers’ neighbouring properties and a conflict with the aim of Policy BH17 of the Blackpool Local Plan to direct cafés and restaurants to the town centre and local/district centres.  A further application was submitted in 2014 for the use of ground and lower floors of 199 Promenade as altered as a restaurant and use of the remainder of both properties as 10 self contained holiday flats and manager’s accommodation and was approved. The current application was for an extension of the restaurant use into 201 Promenade with no linkage between the café/restaurant and holiday flats with the potential for the café to be developed without the holiday flats. Mr Johnston reported concerns that the current proposal would extend the café/restaurant across the lower ground floor of both properties contrary to policy and elements of the appeal decision in relation to the planning application submitted in 2011.

Mr Allen, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted that the proposed development was for a mixed use of both restaurant and holiday accommodation.  He stated that he had not been asked to redesign the extract flue but was prepared to do so if required.  He did not consider that the proposal contravened Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy as in his view it was not within the Main Holiday Accommodation frontage.  He suggested that the application could not be reasonably refused due to the lack of a sequential test as this had not been required. Mr Gallagher, applicant, and Mrs Gallagher, supporter, also spoke in support of the application advising of the conversion of the Waverley Hotel from a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) to flats with en-suite bedrooms.  They also highlighted the significant investment they had made to the Promenade for the benefit of the town, including being the first to have café area on the Promenade frontage.

Mr Johnston confirmed that Core Strategy Policy CS4 and Policy BH17 of the Local Plan clearly sought to direct café/restaurant uses to Town Centre and District and Local Centres.  He advised Members that the existence of a café/restaurant at 199 Promenade was not sufficient justification to allow an extension to 201 Promenade.

The Committee questioned the circumstances of the previous planning applications and Mr Johnston confirmed that the proposal in 2011 which had requested use of part of the ground floor as a restaurant had been recommended for approval but was refused by the Committee and a subsequent appeal against that decision had been dismissed.  The application in 2014 maintained the status quo in terms of the café with the use of the remainder of 199-201 Promenade as holiday flats and this had been approved.  Mr Johnston confirmed that he was unaware of any implementation of the previously granted planning permission and that the permission was still valid.

The Committee expressed concerns at the potential for development of the café/restaurant without the holiday accommodation should planning permission be given, and Mr Johnston confirmed that without a Section 106 agreement this was possible.

Following concerns raised by the Committee, the applicant confirmed that he would be prepared to offer a Section 106 agreement to ensure that both elements of the development would be implemented and to undertake a sequential test if required.

Resolved:  To defer the application to a future meeting to allow the opportunity for discussions to take place between the applicant and the Head of Development Management regarding a Section 106 agreement and sequential test.

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