Councillors' Attendance Statistics
11/1581/FUL - 80 HIGH STREET, HAMPTON HILL (Savills for Edgewest Lambeth Ltd)
Change of use from A4 (public house) to A5 (take away), to include ground floor extension to rear. Repositioning of associated plant at roof level. New means of access created to upper flat.
Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL
Having declared that she had pre-determined her view, Councillor Fleming withdrew from the Committee.
The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments and additions to the report via the addendum:
· Delete last sentence of paragraph 19
· Additional representations – Since the report was written an additional 75 objections had been received from local residents as well as an objection to the loss of the public house from CAMRA. A petition objecting to the application with 89 signatures had been submitted. A spreadsheet indicating the number of parking spaces available in the car park to the rear at certain times of the day had also been submitted.
The location plan for page 1 was corrected as follows:
The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Morpurgo, Chairman of the Friends of Bushy & Home Parks; Miss Hinning, a neighbour not adjoining the site; and Mr Churcher, a representative of the Hampton Hill Association.
The Committee heard representations from Councillor Cardy and Councillor Eady who spoke as interested Councillors.
The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following points were discussed and noted:
(i) The Committee was limited in the weight it could give to the parking issues raised by speakers due to the fact that the existing use of the application site as a public house required more parking spaces than that required by a takeaway, according to the Council’s parking standards. It was also noted that policy TRN2 was being superseded.
(ii) If the application was appealed a hearing would not take place before September. By this time the Council’s UDP policy CCE 15 (retention of indoor recreation, cultural and entertainment facilities) would no longer be relevant as it was being replaced by policies within the Development Management Plan. For this reason it was not useful for the Committee to give too much weight to policy CCE 15 in relation to the application.
(iii) Policy DM TC 4 was focused on preserving local shops and public houses outside Local Neighbourhood Centres and Areas of Mixed Use. The application site was within an area of mixed use
(iv) The proposal’s potential impact on traffic movement in the vicinity could be seen as representing an adverse effect on the local amenity and was thus contrary to the Council’s emerging policy DM TC 5, rather than Policy TRN2 which had not previously been identified by the Committee as being of relevance to the application. In addition, the Council’s transport officer had raised no objection to the application in highway terms.
(v) At the previous Committee policy DMOS 4 (bio-diversity) had been discussed but had not been considered as a separate ground for refusal but could be seen as contributing to wider objection of impact on amenity relating to policy DM TC 5.
(vi) The planning permission would not be personal and it was not yet certain which takeaway company would use the site. The Council’s planning policies did not distinguish between independent companies and multiple chain site users.
The Committee considered that the application would have an adverse impact on locality amenities including the amenity of Bushy Park and the High Street. It was felt that the officer’s recommendation adequately reflected the Committee’s concerns.
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.