Agenda item - BH2015/04564,Mile Oak Inn, Mile Oak Road Portslade

Erection of single storey side extension and erection of retail unit (A1) adjoining existing public house (A4).

RECOMMENDATION - Minded to Grant subject to s106

Ward Affected: North Portslade

              Erection of single storey side extension and erection of retail unit (A1) adjoining existing public house (A4)

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)          The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, referred to further representations which had been received since publication of the report on behalf of the applicants and the licensees and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings. The application related to the Mile Oak Inn, a detached public house on the northwest side of Mile Oak Road at the junction with Oakdene Crescent. The pub had a car park in the forecourt and a substantial garden to the rear and north side. The site lay opposite a small parade of shops, formed of 4 units. The parade operated on a local scale serving the surrounding neighbourhood which was largely residential.

(3)          This application was a resubmission following an earlier refusal and again sought planning permission for the erection of a single storey retail unit (A1) within a side extension to the public house (A4). The retail unit would have a total floor area of 345sqm of which 250sqm would comprise the main retail floorspace. The extension also included a new kitchen for the public house and an ATM to the north side elevation. The extension to the public house was intended to improve the food offer available.

(4)          The main considerations in determination of this application related to the principle of the formation of the retail unit in terms of planning policy, the impact of the proposed development on the existing use in terms of the viability of the public house as a community facility, the design and scale of the external works, the impact of the development  on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, as well as the impact of the development in terms of traffic and transport and impact on the local infrastructure. Concern had been expressed by some residents regarding the impact of a new retail unit on the existing retail store on Mile Oak Road. Whilst the vitality of existing shopping areas was a material planning consideration, the competition between individual stores was not a matter that could be taken into account. It was considered that the proposed retail unit and associated extension to the public house were considered acceptable in design terms, the previous reasons for refusal having been overcome; and subject to conditions would not result in significant harm to the appearance of the site, amenities of adjacent occupiers or to parking capacity or highway safety, in accordance with development plan policies; Minded to Grant planning permission was therefore recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(5)          Mr Bonwick spoke on behalf of Mrs Andrews a neighbouring objector. He detailed her objections to the proposed scheme. There were grave concerns regarding the impact of additional parking and servicing associated with the proposed new use. Existing parking associated with the public house which would be lost due to the development, would result in increased overspill parking in an area which was already congested. The access arrangements for deliveries would exacerbate these problems and could compromise road safety. This application was not significantly different from the previously refused application and was not sustainable. There were also several existing local general stores which could be compromised by the proposals. Another food retail outlet was not needed.

(6)          The Democratic Services Officer read out the contents of a letter received from Councillor Atkinson who was unable to attend the meeting to speak in person. Councillor Atkinson requested that a site visit be undertaken prior to determination of the application. Notwithstanding that there was both support and opposition to the application locally he had concerns that the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome and that the proposed development was not sustainable.

(7)          Mr Mullin spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their scheme. He explained that following the previous refusal the applicant had worked very hard to address the reasons for that refusal and to seek to engage with neighbours in order to come up with a scheme which fully respected their amenity. Independent surveys had been undertaken to seek to ensure pedestrian safety and to respect the local road traffic network, with some improvements being provided by the s106 contribution. Besides the objections there had also been a lot of local support for the scheme which would provide local jobs and help to secure the future of the Mile Oak Inn which was a local community asset.

              Questions for Officers

(8)          Councillor Morris sought clarification of regarding the tactile paving proposed and it was explained that this provided an indented surface which reduced the risk to pedestrians including those who had mobility problems or were partially sighted of trip hazards.

(9)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding the degree of separation between the existing established public house use and the proposed new retail element. He considered that the retention of public houses as community hubs should be supported and would be concerned if there was a danger that this established use could become subsumed by the new retail unit. The applicant’s representative explained that the existing licensee of the public house was of very long standing and the Co-operative were intending to take on a long lease of the retail unit confirming that the two uses were intended to operate independently. The existing car park and garden attached to the public house were under-used and money released from their sale could be used to improve the existing kitchen and food offer available which would help to secure the business’ longer term financial viability.

(10)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that although the public house was not currently registered as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011, it was possible for that to be applied for. Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired regarding means by which two separate distinct uses could be secured, for example by restricting the size of the retail unit. The applicant’s agent confirmed that the retail use was not intended to exceed 345sqm and officers explained that this could form a condition of any planning permission granted.

(11)       Councillor Littman enquired regarding proposals that deliveries would be made from the north. Councillor Gilbey also enquired regarding these arrangements; both Councillors were concerned that access to/ egress from the site should be effected as safely as possible whilst ensuring as little disruption to and congestion of the local road network as possible. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, referred to the arrangements which had been agreed with the applicant and the rationale for them.

(12)       Councillor Gilbey also enquired regarding deliveries to the store and arrangements that could be made to ensure that they were at such times that they did not disrupt traffic or disturb neighbouring residents. It was confirmed that only one delivery per day was envisaged and that this could be dealt with by condition.

(13)       Councillor Morris enquired regarding the arrangements to be put into place for deliveries to/from the store and the collection/storage of waste and it was confirmed that these related to waste generated by the store itself, rather than customer waste. Councillor Morris also enquired regarding arrangements to be put into place for storage and removal of food waste and was pleased to note that the applicant’s agent had indicated that it was intended that waste food which was fit for consumption would be made available to food banks.

(14)       Councillor Wealls also expressed concern regarding storage of such waste which could result in unneighbourly odours, requesting that a condition be added to ensure that this was stored under cover in order to minimise any such nuisance.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stressed that he was concerned that there was separation of the two uses, whilst it was understood that the Committees’ future decision making should not be fettered he considered that it was important to retain the public house use separately in so far as it was practicable to do so. The Legal Adviser to the Committee suggested that this could be effected by restricting the area of retail floor space, if Members were minded to do so. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he shared Councillor Mac Cafferty’s concerns and was pleased that these could be taken on board.

(16)       Councillor Barradell noted what had been said and was in agreement with the approach proposed, but had some concerns that could impact on the viability of the retail unit. It was confirmed that was not a planning consideration and that the proposal would constrain but would not result in a reduction in its floorspace which would remain as requested by the planning application.

(17)       Councillor Wares referred to the yellow line markings proposed to the carriageway the west of Mile Oak Road enquiring whether it would be possible to provide bollards as these would serve to reinforce any parking restrictions and would protect the grass verges from damage. It was confirmed that amendments could be made to proposed Condition 15 if the Committee were minded to do so. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, explained that the traffic/transport measures proposed were intended to not only protect against verge parking but also not to impede the free flow of traffic.

(18)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding potential impact of the new retail unit on the local convenience store enquiring to what extent this was a consideration. It was confirmed that competition between individual stores was not a matter which could be taken account of.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey noted that existing on site car parking would be lost enquiring whether/what account had taken of the impact of overspill parking in the neighbouring vicinity. It was explained that the previous application had been refused in part owing to a lack of detail within the Transport Statement in terms of parking surveys and the cumulative parking and highways impact of both the new retail unit and the existing public house. The new Transport Statement which had been submitted included independent parking surveys and an assessment of the cumulative impact of both these uses. It was not considered that any increased demand would be significant. In terms of deliveries there would be up to one main delivery per day, of up to one hour, with additional minor deliveries of goods such as bread, milk and newspapers. All deliveries would be undertaken at the front of the store. Subject to the recommended s106 contribution and recommended conditions it was not considered that the proposal would result in significant harm to parking demand and highway safety in the wider area.

(20)       Councillor Gilbey also enquired regarding the time at which deliveries would commence bearing in mind the impact that noise could have on the immediately neighbouring dwellings.

(21)       Councillor C Theobald stated that it appeared to her that both the previous reasons for refusal and concerns raised by the Committee had been addressed, therefore she supported the recommendations set out in the report.

(22)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be given subject to a S 106 agreement, the conditions and informatives set out in section 11 of the report and the additional conditions agreed by the Committee and set out below.

178.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance set out in section 7 and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S 106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the amendments/additional conditions set out below:

              Condition (5): No servicing, including deliveries to and collections from the site shall occur to the retail unit and public house, except between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Sundays (including Bank or Public Holidays);

              Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan;

              Condition (15) The amended vehicle crossover on Mile Oak Road and proposed dropped kerbs and tactile paving at both the northern and southern site access points on Mile Oak Road as detailed on drawing no 103 rev F, received on 17 December 2015, together with additional bollards to the grass verge between the two site access points on Mile Oak Road in accordance with details which have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be constructed prior to first occupation of the retail unit hereby permitted;.

              Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with polices TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan, Part One;

              Condition (16): Notwithstanding the drawings hereby approved, the retail unit shall not be occupied until details of the refuse and recycling storage facilities including roofing to the storage area and written details of the type of waste to be stored and the operation and management of the storage area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall thereafter be retained for use and operated and managed in accordance with the approved details.

              Reason: To ensure provision of satisfactory facilities for storage of refuse and recycling to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan;

              Additional Condition: The development hereby permitted shall be laid out as two separate units at all times with the A1 retail space to be provided within the approved extension only in accordance  with the layout as shown on drawing no. 7359/105G. The A1 retail floorspace shall not exceed 345sqm gross floor area.

              Reason: The proposal was assessed on the basis of the amount of retail floorspace proposed to ensure the retention of two planning units on the site and to comply with policy CP4 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.