Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use & listed building consent of educational facility (D1 Use) top A4 Public Houser, external alterations and creation of outdoor areas to the front of the building and car parking to the rear

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of education facility (D1 use) to A4 public house, external alterations and creation of outdoor areas to the from of the building and car parking to the rear and accompanying Listed Building Application at the former Elinor Lupton Centre, Richmond Road, Headingley.

Members attended a site visit prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion on this item.

Further issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The building was Grade II listed and fell within the Headingley Conservation Area.

·  The area was predominantly residential.

·  Access arrangements for deliveries to the site were explained.  These included arrangements should the New Generation Transport Scheme (NGT) be implemented.

·  Hours of operation and deliveries.

·  Highways issues both with and without the NGT.

·  The building was in need of restoration. 

·  Members were asked to carefully consider the balance between the need to restore and re-use a listed building and the potential impact on local amenity and breach of policy.  It had been recommended to defer the application to the Chief Planning Officer for approval.

A local Ward Member addressed the Panel with objections and concerns regarding the application.  These included the following:

·  The proposals were contrary to both national and local planning policy.

·  The area was a quiet residential neighbourhood away from the town centre.

·  The proposals would generate an increase in HGV and LGV traffic.

·  The clientele would involve a high number of students on the Otley run and create disturbance to residents.

·  The building was in a Cumulative Impact Area.

·  Further to questions form Members the following was discussed:

o  An additional public house would increase the numbers of people accessing the area and increase anti social behaviour.

o  Leeds Music Hub had expressed an interest in the use of the building and this would be a preferable option.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Panel.  The following issues were highlighted:

·  There had been extensive negotiations with Planning Officers and public consultation in the development of the proposals.

·  The building had been empty since 2008 and was beginning to deteriorate.

·  The building required £3 million of investment and the applicant was willing to do this.

·  The proposals would create employment for up to 50 people.

·  The plans were sympathetic and would restore the heritage of the building.

·  Further to concerns regarding the potential impact on residential amenity the original proposals had been amended following public consultation.  There would also be responsible management practices and the company received very few complaints regarding their other premises.

·  Further to questions from Members, the following was discussed:

o  Security arrangements would include door staff and CCTV.

o  The applicant would contribute to improvements to the local highways infrastructure.

o  Early opening hours had been requested due to the breakfast trade not for the sale of alcohol.

o  The applicant was looking to create a family atmosphere for food and drink.

o  This would be a long term proposition which was reflected by the applicants willing to invest in the property.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

·  The proposals would have a negative impact on a residential area.

·  The proposals were the only realistic option to restore a decaying building.

·  Concern that the proposals overlooked residential properties and were nearby to a residential home.

·  This was a quiet area and local residents should be considered.

·  Concern regarding the ongoing deterioration of the building.

·  Concerns with parking and other highways issues.

Members voted against the officer recommendation to defer and delegate the application to the Chief Planning Officer for approval and discussed reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the listed building consent for application 15/02490/LI be granted subject to the condions outlined in the report.

(2)  That application 15/02389/FU be refused – draft reason below subject to consideration by Legal Services:

The proposed development would by reason of its out of centre location, sited midway between Headingley Town Centre and Hyde Park Corner on a popular and well known route used by students and others for drinking and entertainment result in a serious loss of residential amenity to nearby residents. The harm would arise from the comings and goings associated with a large capacity public house venue, including late night noise and disturbance caused by people on foot and in their cars and taxis arriving and departing in a predominantly residential area. This harm to residential amenity outweighs the considerable weight afforded to the re-use and restoration of the listed building and the economic benefits of the proposed use.   As such the proposal is contrary to Saved Unitary Development Plan  (Review 2006) policy GP5 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17 detailing  Core Principles which includes always seeking a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.