considered an application for the change of use from a hot food
take-away and a 3 bedroom flat, to a laundrette and 3 no,
residential units for short-term holiday lets; demolition of
existing two storey return; erection of a new single ad two storey
extension to the rear and all associated external works at 17 New
Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee
The application had
been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Denham on the following grounds:
Units do not meet the national minimum space
Lack of outlook for future residents (ground floor
unit in particular); and
Impact of the launderette on neighbouring and future
residents in terms of noise nuisance and extraction of
The report set put the
background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the
proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and
representations and consultations where applicable.
There were no late
The information was
presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and
Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the
There had been no one
registered to speak on the application.
However, local Ward Member, Councillor Denham, who was unable to
attend the meeting had provided her comments on the application,
which had been circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the
Key Points of Debate
Members raised concerns over the size of the rooms which were
smaller than the national standards.
The comments of the Conservation Advisory Panel were noted who had
stated that the proposed residential use is overdevelopment for the
site with amenity space for occupants.
The Interim Head of Development Management acknowledged their
comments but stated that other material circumstances had to be
taken into account. He considered that
the amenity space probably would be an issue if the flats were
Members did question how we would know they were being used as
short term and what was the definition of short term holidays
lets. In response the Interim Head of
Development Management said it can be checked if they pay council
tax/business rates and stated that there was no specific definition
of short term holiday lets.
The Head of Planning referred Members to condition 3 in the report
which stated that they shall not be occupied as a person or
persons’ sole main place or residence. If evidence came to light then a planning
contravention notice can be served.
Concerns were raised over the use of large machines in the
laundrette and the harm it could cause to the fabric of the old
building, together with the noise and steam. It was confirmed that there was a condition in the
listed building application to cover this.
The rear flat was of concern which only had a sky light and no
windows which was considered unacceptable.
Members did comment that businesses should be encouraged and
supported and a proposal was made to approve the application, but
there was no seconder.
A proposal was then made to refuse the application on the grounds
of overdevelopment, lack of amenity and harm to the listed
building, this was seconded.
A proposal to refuse the application had
been made and this was seconded. There
being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each
Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote. Following the recording of the votes the proposal
was refused for the reasons given as follows:
For – 9
Against – 0
Abstentions – 2
Contrary to Officer recommendation it
RESOLVED: That the
1. refuse planning permission
on the grounds of overdevelopment, lack of amenity and harm to the
listed building; and
2. delegates authority to the
Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, subject to
consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning
Committee, to confirm the final wording of the above grounds and
issue the Decision Notice.