Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use and alterations from D1 Education Facility to A4 Public House (Renewal of permission 15/02489/FU)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use and alterations from D1 educational facility to A4 public house (renewal of permission 15/02489/FU) at the former Elinor Lupton Centre, Richmond Road, Headingley, Leeds.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

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

·  The application was referred to Panel at the request of a Local Ward Councillor due to concerns regarding the impact on residential amenity.

·  The application sought renewal of permission that was approved on appeal in 2016.

·  Licensing permission was refused due to the location of the building in the Cumulative Impact Area.  The Cumulative Impact Area had now been reviewed and the building now fell outside of this.  The applicant had confirmed their intention to reapply for a Premises Licence.

·  The building was Grade II listed and fell within the conservation area.  Listed building consent had been renewed in March 2019.

·  The building had fallen into a state of disrepair and had been a target for vandalism.

·  External works proposed would be mainly repairs and restoration.  The main external alterations would be for additional glazing at the rear to allow natural light.

·  Proposed internal layouts were shown.

·  Main issues to consider included the heritage and economic benefits of the re-use of the site and these needed to be weighed against the impact on residential amenity.  Weight also needed to be given to the Inspector’s decision of 2016.

·  The application was recommended for approval.

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

·  The application was rightfully refused in 2015 and Members were asked to consider what had substantially changed since then.

·  Access to the building for customers and service vehicles was located in a quiet residential area.

·  A public house would cause anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. Consideration had to be given to the amenity of local residents and noise impact, but these elements had not been sufficiently addressed in the officer’s report.

·  It was anticipated it would generate 1,500 pedestrian movements a day, 2,100 on a Saturday and over 250 vehicle movements in an already congested traffic area.

·  There were other empty premises in Headingley centre where a similar application would be welcomed.

·  Should the application be granted it was requested that Ward Councillors be consulted with regard to any conditions that could be added.

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

·  The application was identical to that which was previously approved on appeal.

·  The only material change since then is the withdrawal of the proposed NGT trolley bus service.  Due to this, the applicant was willing to fund a pedestrian crossing on Headingley Lane which would previously have been provided within the proposed NGT scheme.

·  The building had been actively marketed for 4 years before the applicant purchased the building.  This was a unique opportunity to safeguard the future of the listed building.

·  The development proposed would be strongly in-line with the applicant’s existing portfolio and approach, in terms of presenting an opportunity to sensitively restore a historically-important building.

·  The objections were the same as those that had previously been considered during the appeal when it was considered that the benefits of the application outweighed those.

·  The applicant had a good track record of operating premises in residential areas. Further, the applicant’s ‘no music’ policy would ensure limited noise disruption for local residents.

·  Granting of the application would create employment opportunities in the area.  The applicant would be prepared to commit to the Council’s employment and skills initiative via a s106 planning obligation.

·  The applicant was agreeable to all conditions outlined in the report.

·  If the application was granted it was still necessary to get licensing permission.

·  The increased glazing would not cause overlooking of residential areas due to the window orientation and separation distances.

·  The outdoor seating and smoking area would be situated at the side of the building and only accessed from the side door of the building.

Comments from the Panel welcomed the potential for bringing the building back into use and that having an active frontage would help passers-by to feel safe.

RESOLVED – That the application be granted as per the officer recommendation.