Decision Maker: Development Panel
Decision status: Refused
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Colin Reed, spoke against the application.
The report recommended that permission be refused.
The Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the item and confirmed that the development panel had attended a site visit.
The Planning and Building Control Manager then went through the main issues as detailed in the report.
Principle of Development
Whilst officers would wish to see the re-use of the building, the siting within a residential area needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the operations associated with the proposed use. The location raises significant concerns with regards to the proposed.
Impact on surrounding area
Officers do not consider the proposed use of a bar/nightclub is an appropriate use for this residential area.
The internal alterations will have an impact on the buildings historic fabric and character, however these are considered to be acceptable and necessary to bring back into use a redundant heritage asset.
Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report.
Questions were asked of the officers and speakers and debate followed relating to fire safety, noise and the setting within a residential area.
Councillor Grainger moved the motion to refuse the application as per officers recommendations.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Munby
A vote was taken on the motion to refuse, 11 voted in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.
The motion was carried.
That permission is refused.
1. The Local Planning Authority consider that, by virtue of the noise from music from the premises and from movements of people to and from the premises and congregating outside, the proposal would result in a significant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties contrary to paragraphs 127 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S3, S4 and S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are sequentially preferable sites for this main town centre use within the town centre as defined by the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014. As such there is no evidence that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Maryport town centre. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policy S16 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
3. In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment the applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood impact contrary Chapter 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S29 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
4. In the absence of a Bat Survey the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on protected species and therefore fails to comply with Policy S35 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1), Adopted July 2014.
Report author: Susan Hanley
Publication date: 22/10/2019
Date of decision: 22/10/2019
Decided at meeting: 22/10/2019 - Development Panel