The Committee considered an application for
the extension and conversion of a public house into 6 flats
(re-submission of application 20/00377/FUL) at the Garibaldi Inn,
80 Bromyard Road.
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application had been referred to Planning
Committee at the request of Councillor Udall on the grounds of,
lack of parking for residents, highway safety, overdevelopment and
cramped living conditions.
The report set out the background to the
proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself,
relevant policies, planning history and the representations and
consultations where applicable.
There were no late papers circulated.
The information was presented as set out by
the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
The principle issue is the provision of car
parking to serve the proposed development. The Committee’s
attention was drawn to the objection from the County Council
Highway Authority with regard to parking at paragraph at 6.1 of the
report and to the differing views of officers as outlined in
paragraphs 7.22 to 7.27 of the report, namely the
‘fallback’ position of the public house coming back
There had been no one registered to speak on
application. However, a local Ward
Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee objecting to the
Key Points of
A local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, respected and
accepted the demise of public houses but did not accept the
conversion of the site into 6 flats, which would be over occupation
of the site and that 4 is more than enough. Parking is already a concern in this area and 3
spaces for 6 flats is insufficient. He
was pleased with the condition to retain the existing public house
hanging sign but asked that the Committee either defer or refuse
Members generally agreed that parking was an issue and that there
were differing views between County and City officers. The ‘fallback’ position was noted but
it was felt that the comments of the Highway Authority, as a
statutory consultee, should be taken seriously.
Some Members felt that there was an argument for a degree of
betterment and how could the parking situation be made less
worse. It was noted that the applicant
had put forward proposals and had listened to the inspector and
addressed issues raised by officers. It
was accepted that a reduced number of flats would be unviable, but
the alternative would be to leave the site to become vandalised.
It was proposed that on balance the
proposal should be accepted.
It was commented that the site was right for development, it was
unlikely to return to a public house in the current circumstances,
but because of the concerns about
parking and overdevelopment it was suggested that the application
be deferred for a more considered approach due to resident’s
A proposal to approve the application had been
made and this was seconded. The Chair
asked the ...
view the full minutes text for item 87.