Agenda item

To determine a full planning application from ID Partnership Northern for the demolition of existing public house and redevelopment of site to provide 1no.retail unit (Class E), 1no.drinking establishment with expanded food provision (Sui Generis) and 14no. apartments, associated car parking, infrastructure and landscaping works.

(Councillor C Johnston withdrew from the meeting at this point and took no part in the deliberation and voting on the application)

The Committee considered a report from the planning officers, together with an addendum circulated prior to the meeting, in relation to a full planning application from Malhotra Leisure Limited for the demolition of the existing public house and the redevelopment of the site to provide 1no. drinking establishment with expanded food provision (Sui Generis) and 14 apartments, associated car parking, infrastructure and landscaping works.

A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.  The report also made reference to the planning history of the site and the subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which had been dismissed on the grounds of a lack of the completed S106 agreement.

In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme, Kathryn Lane addressed the Committee on behalf of a number of local residents who objected to the proposed development.  Ms Lane explained that the main issue related to the height of the building and the proposed windows which were out of character of the area and intrusive.  She also referred to the cumulative impact of an increase in traffic and parking which would impact on residents and lead to an overspill in surrounding streets.  She also explained that the application before the Committee was the same design with the same objections.

Fraser Doherty also addressed the Committee.  He explained that the plans were identical to those previously considered and refused by the Committee.  He made reference to the properties affected by overshadowing and loss of light from the development and provided examples in relation to the effect it would have on neighbouring properties at various times of the year.  He also referred to the impact that the development would have on the efficiency of solar panels that residents had had installed.  Reference was also made to the right to light and that similar applications had been refused in the past.

Councillor Willie Samuel had been granted permission to speak to the Committee as a Ward Councillor for Cullercoats.  He explained that there was a substantial body of residents who had objected to the application.  He referred the size of the 4-storey building and said that it was too large for the site and out of keeping with the area.  He also explained that the development was not in a town centre location and that there were currently issues in relation to traffic movements and the surrounding roads would not be able to cope with the increased traffic from the development.

Councillor Samuel also made reference to the planning inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal in relation to the previous application and that this was an almost identical application before the Committee today.  He referred to the developers lack of communication/engagement with local residents and asked the Committee to consider the merits of the application.   

(Councillor W Samuel withdrew from the meeting at this point)

Harvey Emms of Lichfields addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant to respond to the speakers’ comments.  He explained that the officer report in front of the Committee was comprehensive and that the representations against the development had decreased.  He also referred to the decision of the Planning Inspector and also explained that the pub was not a community asset and would have to close.  He referred to the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, that the development met the Authority’s parking standards and the hight and massing of the development had been accepted by the planning officer and also the Planning Inspector. He also addressed the issue of daylight/sunlight and explained that the development was in accordance with the required standards.  The development was compliant in relation to the provision of affordable homes and Section 106 payments and he explained that the planning officers had not identified any grounds to refuse the application. 

Members of the Committee asked questions of the speakers and officers and made comments.  In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:

a)    The height, scale and massing of the development within the local street scene;

b)    The adequacy of the proposed car parking provision and vehicular access to the site particularly with reference to the nature of the development and the traffic levels and parking in the local area;

c)     The landscaping scheme for the development and the loss of a number of trees from the site;

d)    The decision of the Planning Inspector in relation to application 21/02539/FUL and its relevance to the current application.

e)    The effect of the Housing Land Availability Assessment which confirmed that the Council did not have a five-year housing supply of deliverable housing sites.  Consequently, there was a presumption in favour of the development unless the impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

The Chair proposed acceptance of the planning officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote, 6 members voted for the recommendation and 2 voted against the recommendation.

Resolved that (1) the Committee is minded to grant the application; and

(2) The Director of Regeneration and Economic Development be authorised to issue a notice of grant of planning permission subject to:

i) the completion of the legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure financial contributions;         

ii)        the conditions set out in the planning officers report and addendum;

iii)       the addition, omission or amendment of any other conditions considered necessary by the Director of Regeneration and Economic Development

(Reasons for the decision:  The Committee concluded that having regard to the relevant policies contained in the Local Plan 2017 and National Planning Policy Framework the proposed development was acceptable in terms of the principle of development and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway safety.  The Committee also had regard to the finding of the Planning Inspector in relation to application 21/02539/FUL on the site.)