Agenda item

(Councillors Phil Barnett, Tony Vickers and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council and its Planning and Highways Committee where this applications had already been discussed. Councillor Vickers also declared that his wife was a ward member and had previously indicated her opposition to this application. Councillor Moore also declared that he had been lobbied on the application. As their interests were personal and not prejudicial, or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01326/FUL in respect of 11 - 13 Market Place, Newbury. The applicant sought permission for a change of use of the ground floor from betting shop (Sui Generis) use to adult gaming and amusement centre with bingo (Sui Generis), including installation of associated signage comprising 1no. externally illuminated fascia sign and 1no. externally illuminated projecting sign.

2.         Mr David Pearson, Team Leader – Development Control, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion,  the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended to approve the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report and update sheet.

Removal of Speaking Rights

3.         As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

4.         The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

5.         In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Barney Ray, agent, who was not able to attend the remote meeting.

6.         Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda: http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=6067&Ver=4

Agent’s Submission 

7.         The Clerk read out the representation.

Member’s Questions to Officers

8.         Councillor Tony Vickers asked how the proposed condition on sound reduction would be implemented. He suggested that it was difficult to ensure this was implemented and effective prior to the development coming into use.

9.         Mr Pearson indicated that the Council did not have the resources to proactively monitor every condition imposed and that they had to rely on applicants implementing conditions as agreed. However, he noted that agents were aware of the consequences if there were subsequent complaints, and if investigations found that noise mitigation had not been implemented correctly. He also highlighted that the development required a licence to operate, which must be renewed at regular intervals, and so this provided the Council with additional controls. He indicated that if members had particular concerns, the Enforcement Team could ask the applicant to notify the Council when the works had been completed, so an inspection could be arranged subject to available resources.

10.      Councillor Andy Moore asked about the petition submitted by friendsofnewbury.co.uk. He stated that he had not been able to find the organisation on the Internet and had emailed the contact without reply. He asked the officer if the petition had been validated. Mr Pearson explained that the Planning Department did not have the resources to routinely validate submissions, and so they were taken in good faith.

11.      Councillor Carolyne Culver noted that officers had concerns about the company (page 40, point 6.16) and asked what these were. Mr Pearson confirmed that these were concerns raised by the objectors and that officers did not have any concerns.

12.      Councillor Hilary Cole noted the proposal for 24 hour operation and asked if the Committee could change the operating hours. Mr Pearson confirmed that Members could restrict operating hours if they had significant concerns, but noted that the applicant had six months to take any condition to appeal if they did not agree with it. He noted that planning officers were not aware of what licence conditions might be imposed.

13.      Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that the Planning Committee was operating blind, and that it might want one thing, and the Licensing Committee another.

14.      Councillors Vickers and Moore stated that they had watched the livestream of the Licensing Committee meeting where this application had been discussed. Councillor Moore indicated that he did not know the outcome, but from the discussion he had seen, it was unlikely that the Licensing Committee could or wished to impose conditions limiting the hours of operation, and that they were subject to more significant legal constraints than the Planning Committee.

15.      Councillor Culver asked how many jobs the development would create and the level of income generated. Mr Pearson stated that the supporting evidence showed it would create between six and twelve jobs, and that it would mean an empty building would become active again, generating business rates. He also noted the applicant had mentioned that the organisation made large donations to charity, but he did not recall any other figures about wider economic benefits.

16.      Councillor Culver noted that moral issues were not applicable to the Committee’s discussion, but asked if there would be any kind of shop that would not be considered appropriate for this location (e.g. a sex shop). Councillor Hooker suggested that this could only be addressed if such an application came before Committee in its entirety.

17.      Mr Pearson stressed that it was important to bear in mind that the premises had existing permission for gambling, and so could revert to a betting shop at any time.

18.      Councillor Moore noted that the application to the Planning Committee was for an adult gaming centre with bingo, but the application to the Licensing Committee was for a bingo centre, and wondered if this was a different application for a different purpose. Mr Pearson stated that he was not an expert on licensing, but he noted that the applicant would have gaming machines and online bingo games, and the information provided to the Planning Committee was an accurate indication of the intended use.

19.      Councillor Howard Woollaston expressed concern about the proposed operating hours. Mr Pearson indicated that Members needed good grounds for restricting the hours of operation. He noted that there were no objections from Environmental Health or the Police. He suggested that it might be difficult to defend any restrictions on operating hours at appeal. He reminded members that the licence would need to be renewed at regular intervals, which would provide some control if there were issues. He noted that the applicant had similar premises around the country and had never had a licence revoked.

Debate

20.      Councillor Hilary Cole agreed with the agent’s comments about the need for a pragmatic approach and to prioritise economic recovery. She confirmed that she had no issue with a gaming establishment at this location, but she saw no reason for it to have a 24 hour operation. She indicated that she would be more comfortable if the operating hours were restricted. She noted that Environmental Health had no reason to support restricted operating hours, but noted that the nearby nightclubs and pubs restricted their late opening hours to the weekends. She suggested that there was not a demand for 24 hour gambling in Newbury. She indicated that she was happy to support the officer’s recommendation, but wanted to see a condition imposed to restrict opening hours to 2am at the latest.

21.      Councillor Barnett seconded Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal. However, he noted that some customers may be addicted to gambling and that limiting the time they could spend there may be sensible. He also suggested that the development may attract people that the organisation may not want to accommodate, and staff would need to be properly trained to handle this.

22.      Councillor Moore also expressed his support for Councillor Hilary Cole’s proposal to limit operating hours, but acknowledged that it was difficult to make a strong case to do so, because of the limited noise nuisance. He suggested that it should close at midnight Monday to Friday and 3am on Saturday and Sunday to align with other entertainment venues in the area. He suggested that if the town centre was generally quiet after other businesses had closed, then customers leaving this development may disturb that quiet. He asked officers to assist with framing conditions.

23.      Councillor Hooker asked Councillor Moore for his thoughts on opening times. Councillor Moore suggested 8am or 9am.

24.      Councillor Jeff Cant indicated that ideally he would like to see the hours restricted to those of the existing betting shop. He suggested that the development could be a magnet for people leaving pubs when they closed, and suggested that it should close when the nearby pubs closed to guarantee peace for local residents.

25.      Councillor Dennis Benneyworth agreed with Councillors Hilary Cole and Phil Barnett. He suggested that operation would be self-limiting, since it would not be economically viable to be open 24 hours a day. He suggested that it would not be universally popular within the town, and that closing at 12am in the week, and 3am at weekends would be acceptable.

26.      Councillor Vickers noted that Councillor Moore knew the town centre well in his capacity as a street pastor. He agreed that gambling was addictive and that this was a good reason not to have 24 hour operation. He noted that it was unlikely to ever have more than one person working there, and this lack of support was a concern. He disagreed that this development was the same as a betting shop, since betting shops were quiet places and gaming machines were noisy. While he was impressed with the submitted sound report, which suggested that mitigation would be adequate, his experience as an applicant was that he had to spend a lot of money simulating the situation that the mitigation was designed to address, only to find that the mitigation was not effective. He suggested that restricting the hours of operation would allow residents living about the shop to get some rest.

27.      Councillor Moore noted that in the agent’s response to one of the objectors on 14 September, he had accepted that an hours limitation may be possible, but subsequently changed his position.

28.      Councillor Hilary Cole proposed a condition restricting opening hours of 8am to midnight Monday to Thursday and Sunday, and 8am to 2am the following day on Fridays and Saturdays.

29.      Councillor Moore suggested extending the opening hours to 3am at weekends to be in line with Zinc nightclub.

30.      Councillors Hilary Cole and Barnett agreed to amend the original proposal to reflect Councillor Moore’s suggestion.

31.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole and seconded by Councillor Barnett to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report, subject to an additional condition restricting opening hours to 8am to midnight from Monday to Thursday and on Sunday, and from 8am to 3am the following morning on Friday and Saturday. At the vote, the motion was carried by eight votes for and one against.

32.      Councillor Hooker experienced technical issues with his connection and temporarily left the meeting, so Councillor Vickers took over as Chairman.

33.      Councillor Culver noted the noise survey highlighted the need to constrain noise to 30 dB between 11pm and 7am, but this was not mentioned in the noise mitigation on page 41, point 4. She asked if this could be incorporated into the conditions.

34.      David Pearson confirmed that the application had been determined, so conditions could not be amended.

35.      Councillor Vickers asked if the existing condition satisfied Councillor Culver’s concerns because the applicant was undertaking to meet the specified sound levels at all times. Councillor Culver noted that she had indicated that she wished to speak before the vote, but had not been allowed.

36.      Sharon Armour confirmed that the vote had been taken on the conditions listed in the agenda, which referenced the report, so the details of the report had been accepted. 

37.      Councillor Hilary Cole suggested that the condition included what was specified in the update report.

38.      Councillor Vickers asked if the concern should be minuted and included as an informative.

39.      Sharon Armour confirmed that the conditions in the agenda pack and update report had been approved and suggested that Planning Officers could come back to Councillor Culver on whether her concerns were addressed by these conditions.

40.      Councillor Hooker rejoined the meeting. He agreed that the conditions were as per the agenda pack and update report, but with the additional condition on operating hours. He noted that no concerns had been expressed about the noise report or Environmental Health’s comments. He noted that it was his right as Chairman to curtail discussion at any time.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grantplanning permission subject to the conditions listed below:

Conditions

1.         Approved Documents

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the following plans/drawings:

·         Drawing Ref. MP/NEW/01 Existing Floor Plans and Shopfront Elevation (Rev. A) dated 12 June 2020

·         Drawing Ref. MP/NEW/04 Proposed Fascia Sign and Projecting Sign Details (Rev. D) dated 30 September 2020

·         Drawing Ref. MP/NEW/06a Block Plan dated 12 June 2020

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.

2.         Commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the permission.

3.         Materials as specified

The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

4.         Noise Mitigation

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until all rectification works identified in Table 1 of the approved Noise Assessment Report (Ref: PR2001_28_FINAL) dated 01 October 2020 have been provided. Thereafter these works shall be permanently retained in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities. This condition is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

5.         Hours of Operation

The operating hours for the development shall be restricted as follows:

·         Monday to Thursday and Sunday – 8am to midnight

·         Friday and Saturday – 8am to 3am of the following morning

Reason: To protect the amenities. This condition is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Informatives

1.         In determining this application the Local Planning Authority has worked positively and proactively with the applicant by: scoping of the application and assessing the proposals against relevant Development Plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework including its associated planning practice guidance and European Regulations. Further, the Local Planning Authority has: identified all material considerations and determined the application within the timeframe agreed with the applicant. This approach has been in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

2.         For further information regarding the discharge of the conditions or any other matters relating to the decision, please contact the Customer Call Centre on: 01635 519111.