Agenda item

Change of use of former public house to 8no flats with associated internal, external works and parking, Great Western Hotel, 47 Camborne Grove, Yeovil BA21 5DG

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He told members the original application had been deferred at the September committee to allow negotiations to take place in respect of the parking provison associated with the proposal. 

He referred members to the proposed amendments as set out in his report and although this had reduced the parking provison requirement by one space a 4^th parking space had now been created.

He also updated members that two further letters had been received reiterating concerns regarding parking provision and sustainability, however all other consultee comment’s remained unchanged.  His recommendation therefore was to approve the application and the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

A member of the public and representative for Camra then spoke in objection to the application.  Comments raised included:

·         Disappointed the Council had decided not to enter the property onto the list of Assets of the Community (AVC) as it was an excellent community pub that should remain.

·         The scheme showed no consideration for local residents with the parking provision to be unacceptable. 

·         Roads within the area were already to full capacity and the addition of many more cars would have an impact on highway safety.

·         Questioned the sustainability and the reliance for residents to depend solely on public transport with the area already badly served by the local bus service.

The agent then addressed the committee and believed the amendments made to the application with the additional parking space to be acceptable.  He noted the Council had decided for a second time to decline adding the pub to the Community Asset Register and believed it to be in a highly sustainable location, within walking distance of the railway station and town centre facilities.  He said it was an opportunity to provide housing of smaller units for low cost and was fully compliant to policy.

Ward member, Councillor Tony Lock acknowledged the former public house was no longer a viable business with lack of trade over recent years and therefore supported the change of use.  Nonetheless he still raised concern regarding the lack of parking provision given the number of flats proposed within the development.  He said the surrounding roads were already at full capacity and this proposal would result in more pressure for on street parking and be harmful to pedestrian safety. 

Ward member, Councillor Rob Stickland also had concern regarding the lack of parking provision given the surrounding roads were already at capacity and could not support the application. 

Ward member, Councillor David Recardo reiterated concerns regarding parking provision and that the pub had declined over the years and therefore was just not viable.

During discussion members made several comments including the following:

·         Felt the proposal was within a sustainable location and that the applicant had made acceptable amendments to mitigate concerns regarding parking provision.

·         No substantial reasons for refusal that could be defended at an appeal.

·         Concern regarding the proposed provision of car parking and potential impact for on street parking in the area.

·         Highlighted the County Highways comments stating their reservations regarding the proposed parking provision and potential impact for on street parking and local bus service manoeuvrability.

·         Believed the pub was no longer a viable business opportunity.

·         Should note the concerns of local residents who have to rely on road parking with numerous vehicles already parked on the street corners, therefore this proposal would have a severe impact on public safety.

·         Noted the objections from Yeovil Town Council and that the proposal did not meet the County’s parking strategy.

Following a short debate it was then proposed and subsequently seconded to approve the application as per the recommendation set out in the agenda report. On being put to the vote this was lost by 2 votes in favour, 10 against and 2 abstentions.

Following a further discussion the Senior Planning Advisor suggested to members the following reason for refusal based on the issues raised during debate.

‘The proposal does not provide sufficient on-site parking provision and the expected nature and volume of traffic and parked vehicles generated by the development, in this particular location, would have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area, particularly local bus service manoeuvrability, contrary to Policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.’

Members agreed with the suggested reason for refusal and it was therefore proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application for the reason as read out by the Senior Planning Advisor and on being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 18/01122/FUL be refused for the following reason:

The proposal does not provide sufficient on-site parking provision and the expected nature and volume of traffic and parked vehicles generated by the development, in this particular location, would have a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area, particularly local bus service manoeuvrability, contrary to Policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(voting: 10 in favour, 2 against, 2 abstentions)