Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Any questions before we start the meeting? Now we have nobody present online at the moment, Chair, so that's everything, thank you. Thank you very much, and I think looking at the people I've got in the room and who I'm expecting to see, we're not expecting anybody to be joining us virtually this evening, are we? Nope, I've had confirmation, good, lovely. So item number one, apologies for absence. I've received apologies from Councillor Michael Muir, and having given due notice, Councillor Joe Graziano will be substituting for Councillor Muir. Are there any further apologies from anyone? Nope. Okay, item number two, notification of other business. There has been none. Which brings me on to Chair's announcements. So first part, in respect of recording, in accordance with the Council policy, this meeting is being recorded. The recording will be available both on the Council's YouTube channel as well as the Council's ModGov site alongside the documents from this evening's meeting. Number two, declarations of interest. Members are reminded to make declarations of interest before an item, and the detailed reminder about this, as well as speaking rights, is set out under the Chair's announcements on the agenda. Number three, to clarify matters for the registered speakers, much of this is going to be irrelevant for this evening because I've only got a member advocate and the two applicants representatives here this evening, but I'll read the whole lot anyway for the benefit of committee members, just so we get into the swing of it. So members of the public in groups of supporters or objectors have up to three minutes per person. Where there is only one public supporter or objector, then that member of the public will have up to five minutes. There are separate groups for people who registered as member advocate objectors and member advocate supporters for the applicant, their agent or representative. This is up to five minutes per group. All speakers will receive a warning when you have one minute remaining, and following conclusion of your time, members will be invited to ask for any points of clarification. At the end of your allotted time, you'll be advised that the time allowed has ended and you must cease. What I will say briefly as an addendum to this standard announcement this evening is we've got two applications, each of which have got two parts of listed consent and then the main planning application. As we did last week, it doesn't really make sense for us to effectively have four separate presentations. So rather than taking each of those as four individual presentations, we shall just have a presentation in respect of the George that covers all the issues and then the presentation in respect of 31 Hitchen Street, when we get there, covering off all of those issues. When it comes down to voting on each item, we will, of course, take the votes separately for the relevant items. In terms of the timing at my discretion, I have determined, given that we're effectively taking two presentations in one to allow the speakers to have the combined five minutes for each part. So they've got a maximum of 10 minutes. I've been assured that nobody is going to be abusing that and more likely than not, they shan't need the whole 10 minutes. But I shall remind them when we get on to that particular point. So slight departure to the usual announcement section there, colleagues. Back on track, item number four, section four point eight point two three a of the Constitution. For the purposes of clarification, in order to vote on a gender item at this meeting, a member must be present for the entirety of the debate and consideration of the item. If a member leaves the room at any point of the item, they will not be able to vote. If anybody needs a break or does need to leave the room, I'm quite happy if you indicate. And we can hold an adjournment so that we don't lose anybody's right to participate. Membership. A delegated decision was published in the Members Information Service on the 14th of June 2024, regarding the Labour and Co-operative membership of this committee, and as such Councillors Amy Allen and Ian Mantle became full committee members and Councillor Sean Nolan a reserve member. Number six, Planning Appeals. I have added to the agenda the planning appeals that were listed on the planning control committee's agenda of the 13th of June 2024, as we agreed at the end of that meeting. Given the short time, those papers weren't able to be updated and published. You have obviously had the appeals tracker previously, and you've all got paper copies on desk as well. It's an information item, but hopefully we can actually have a discussion around these points this evening, now that we've got a slightly less packed agenda than we had last week. Right. The paper copy apparently is only for myself. I do apologise. Yes, Councillor Brougham. I was just going to say they were emailed earlier this evening, but I don't think there were any changes. No. No, no changes to the documents that you've previously seen. If anybody does desperately want a paper copy, you're welcome to come and take it off my desk, though. Right. Thank you. So item number four, public participation. I've got four members, well, I've got four people listed to speak this evening. I haven't got four people. I don't know why I've got what I'm saying on here. Let's get rid of that, because that's not helpful next to me. And I've already explained the approach that we're taking in respect of hearing these applications. So I shall then move on to our first substantive application of the evening, which is reference 24/00181/FP, which is The George at Buldoch, Hitchen Street, Buldoch, Hertfordshire, SG76AE. Can I ask Thomas Howes to present your report, please? Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. I have some updates for the application. So when the delegated reports was published or at least written, the agent had been asked to agree to precommencement conditions. And since then, they've provided some of the information up front. And this has been agreed to. And there's also been the alteration of one condition. So what has happened is the hours precommencement condition has been emitted and this will be replaced with a condition with hours provided by the agents, which are Monday to Sunday, 9am to midnight opening hours. And this has been run by Environmental Health and they're OK with that. They said basically, if there is an issue with those opening hours, a review of their licence would be the kind of the trigger for considering those hours further if there is any needed change. The precommencement condition was added to the full permission for soundproofing details for the hotel rooms due to their proximity to the kitchen prep space. The agents provided the soundproofing details and again, I spoke to Environmental Health and they say they're acceptable details. However, I didn't get input from conservation team. So instead that condition has kind of been transplanted to the list of building consent instead, so that we can ensure there's no detrimental impacts from soundproofing to list of building. A waste details addition was added to the full permission. However, an updated floor plan has been provided showing these with one industrial, I think it's described as commercial bin store for the hotel within a cupboard off by fire exit two and also within the rear storage area by final fire exit three for both the commercial bin store for the cheese and wine bar and one for the restaurants. So because these details have been provided upfront and we're OK with them, those conditions have been removed. So also the floor plan and also the soundproofing details were distributed through ModGov so they can be viewed there and also the floor plan supersedes the floor plan originally proposed. So there'll be a new plan. I think it's Rev B or version B basically. And so the new hours condition shall read. The opening hours of the restaurant and retail bar unit use class EA, he permitted here by permitted shall only be permitted between nine hours and midnight hours, Monday to Sunday. Reason to protect the residential amenities of existing residents and to comply with the provisions of Policy D three of North Hearts. Local Plan 2011, 2031. And with regards, sorry, the list of building consent, the material samples condition stands, as in it's not changed. However, following a request from the agent, the joinery details condition was updated to omit that it was precommencement. So instead, it's prior to any works happening to windows or doors rather than prior to any works happening, just so they could they could start some works at least on site. And as I say, the soundproofing condition from the full commission will just be moved to list of building consent so we can get that conservation officer input prior to any of those works happening. Thank you. Please can have my presentation. Actually, apologies, there's one other update. The my reports do not reference the Bulldog neighbourhood plan. However, the policies within the neighbourhood plan do not reference such changes of use discussed, or at least the change of use changes proposed. There are heritage and conservation area policies within the neighbourhood plan. However, they're consistent with local plan policies, such as H.E.1 and also the MPPF, such as Section 16. So these matters were still considered and still pertinent to the application considerations. Thank you. Thank you. So this is the location plan showing the George in Bulldog. Whitehall streets and I believe Hitchin Street run parallel with the front, so the south eastern corner of the building and Sun Street is to the rear of the pedestrian space to the to the east of the building to the right. Part of the building is in secondary shopping frontage. Imagine it's the kind of the right 40 percent of the building, whilst the remainder, kind of other 60 percent to the west, is not designated shopping frontage, though the entire building is listed and within the conservation area. Can I have the next slide, please? This is a view from Whitehall Street showing the main entrance of the George, the white canopy with to the right of it the proposed entrance area for the cheese, cheese and wine bar. The proposed hotel use would be accessed from the kind of left flank elevation of the building for a door, an existing doorway. Next slide, please. This is a view from Sun Street with the pedestrianised zone on the left. The right hand gates are towards the church yard whilst that the closest door next to the window is the access for the cheese and wine bar. Next slide, please. This is the elevation where two windows are proposed. They would be on the right right half of that elevation below the two set pairs of the pair of three windows. And this face is directly out onto the churchyard and church. Next slide, please. And these are some images of the rather mothballed interior of the building. This is the main kind of restaurant eatery area. Next slide, please. And then this is kind of a picture pivoted right by about 90 degrees. Next slide, please. And then this is the kitchen space and eatery area. And next slide, please. And then again, more of the eatery area. This is looking towards where some of the hotel rooms would be whilst the bar and the retained bar, also the cheese and wine bar area would be kind of back and right of this image. Next slide, please. This is the rear elevation showing that elevation that faces the church with the two the two small windows being the ones proposed to the right hand side of the building. Next slide, please. And this is the previous floor plan. And nothing changes other than just the bin store details being shown on the plans. Thank you. Next slide, please. And I believe that's my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do members of the committee have any questions for the Planning Officer? Yes, Councillor Tyson. Thank you. Thomas, thanks for that. I just got a bit confused about the entranceways because you said at one point that the big fancy doorway was going to be the entrance to the I thought you said to the cheese and wine bar and deli, but then you said the smaller door to the right of that was the cheese and wine bar entrance. Are they separate purposes, or are they both entrances into the same space? So basically, the big white canopy with the two double doors, that would be the main entrance to the restaurant. And then there's a smaller single door, that's the cheese and wine bar entrance. Okay, yes, Councillor Peace. Just noticed that one of the comments is that a local resident has asked about this being a back door route to residential. I just wondered if you could comment on the differences between applying for a Planning Commission when you've got a restaurant usage like this, and then a hotel usage like this and what that comment possibly is alluding to. So there's also a reference to permitted development changes. So I've checked the general permitted development order. And there are some permitted changes, but in this case, there's none that relate because the building's listed. There was a consultation for hotel to residential a few months ago, I think it was last year. However, this has not proceeded and is not permitted change at the moment. But as I said, we can't consider if it will change. But at the moment, it's not permitted change. Sure. And I'm not sure about if there's any difference with hotel to resi or I think it would still be the same considerations. Yes, at the moment, there's no permitted change of use from hotels to dwelling houses. As Thomas said earlier, the government consorted back in November on a possible change of hotels to dwelling houses as permitted development. But they've not followed through with that consultation. We've had nothing from them since and we may not now get anything from them with regards to that proposed change to the general permitted development order. So as things currently stand, there is no permitted change of use from hotels to dwelling houses. As Thomas said, there is permitted change of use from class E, which includes the shop and restaurant to dwelling houses. But because it's a listed building, it does not benefit from that permitted development right. Okay. Lovely. Thank you. I'm not seeing anybody else indicates that they've got questions for our Planning Officer. So I shall move us on then to our member advocate objector. So Councillor Willoughby, as I said, I'm prepared to double up on the time so you have a maximum of ten minutes. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by saying that this site is one of the oldest hospitality sites in Bulldog and actually in the district. Additionally, people in Bulldog voted for a labour manifesto that pledged to save our town centres. I'm aware that these factors alone will not, in all likelihood, be viewed as material considerations, but it demonstrates public support to ensure our town centres and our communities are viable. In regard to heritage, I note that the report states in section three point three point four that it is advised that there would be less than substantial harm to this heritage asset. However, by reason of the proposed development bringing the building back into use after being vacant for an extended period, the public benefits would outweigh the harm that the works would cause. I do not believe that this is a reasonable assessment against which we should allow such applications to go ahead. This would suggest to any would be developer that they could allow a building to remain vacant for a period of time in order to make whatever changes they would like to our heritage sites throughout the district. It's not a good precedent set at all. That alone should be good enough reason to design to deny this application. Additionally, section 16 part 203 of the MPF states in determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of, but a the desirability of sustaining, enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable use is consistent with their conservation and be the positive contribution that sorry, the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including that economic viability vitality. Sorry, it is clear that this application does not fulfil these requirements, particularly as previously stated. This is an incredibly historic site for the town and district. While the applicant argues that this site is not viable as a business, there is no clear evidence of this. There was a business that operated on the site as a restaurant and bar until it was closed by the covid pandemic. After the lockdowns ended, the venue remained closed. There is nothing substantive to demonstrate the viability or lack thereof for the site as it is now. The applicant has not consulted with the wider community about the venue except only very briefly when the planning application was submitted. This has meant that there has been no opportunity for the exploration exploration of the site being commercially viable as it stands. Additionally, it is considered this site should be split into separate parts, with one part being the wine and cheese cafe/bar and another being a restaurant. It does not mean that the third part should be taken out of commercial, employment, retail or hospitality use. There's been no viability test to ascertain whether a third retail or hospitality business could not or could or could not exist in that space. Therefore, even if the splitting of the site were to go ahead, a third retail or hospitality site should take the remaining space. I will also add that the applicant had initially told me that the access to the boiler and electrical supply for the hotel rooms would necessitate adding a staircase in what is currently the restaurant area. However, he subsequently demonstrated to me that accessing that area was achievable through the access that's in the communal space for use by all businesses within the site. Section 6 of the MPPF states, Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Section 7 of the MPPF states, Planning policies and decisions should support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation. Retain and enhance existing markets, and where appropriate, reintroduce or create new ones. Certainly not removing parts. Further, there is no on-site parking for the hotel as it currently stands, let alone for further guests that the new rooms will bring. Where would guests of the additional hotel rooms be expected to park? Four new rooms could see up to eight cars needing space on top of those required for the existing rooms. I note that the report suggests that there is on-street parking in proximity to the venue, but this statement is disingenuous at best. The on-street parking is sparse, much of it is permitted and/or has limited parking time allowance, and the very small parking that doesn't have limited time allowance, which is further afield from the venue than would be considered local to it, is the only parking that nearby residents have for their homes. We already have a great deal of issues on Church Street and Hitchens Street with problem and unlawful parking, and there is no long-stay parking in the centre of Bulldog. I suggest that the committee asks where hotel customers park currently and where additional spaces may be found for these and additional hotel guests. Just today, I've been contacted by a resident on Church Street who reports that eight non-permitted cars are parked within the residential parking, which is permitted parking. And I am constantly contacted by residents about the issues on Hitchens Street and parking on double yellow lines. I end by reminding the committee that once our commercial, hospitality and retail and employment space is gone, it will be gone for good. Bulldog is going to grow into a much larger town and we are at risk of allowing it to become a dormitory town where residents sleep but don't really live. My fellow Bulldog councillors and I do not want to be the ones that let the flame go out when every rational instinct suggests that there are alternatives to be found if we apply ourselves, adhere to regulations such as the MPPF, and work together for this community. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay colleagues, so does anyone have any points of clarification that they wish to ask Councillor Willie before? Yes, Councillor Brown. You said that a third of the space is being lost to hospitality. Can you clarify that? Because maybe I've missed something but can you clarify what you mean by that? Sorry, from hospitality. So the toilets and the part of the restaurant area that is being applied to turn into hotel rooms is about a third of the downstairs ground floor. Is hotel not hospitality? No. It's hotel. Councillor Mason. Trying to catch this into a question. I'm slightly, I sort of sympathise a lot of the rhetoric of what you said, but I'm also cognising that this is a proposal to bring what I understand is an empty building at the moment into some retail, and I can't say hospital, what I think is hospitality, as well as hotel use, which would bring people and money into the area. So it's almost, I've heard a little bit you're arguing against yourself that I'm not sure what it is we're trying to preserve that this doesn't, this rather than just turning it into flats, which seems to be what happens to most pubs in the area. And I think this seems to me, at least a reasonably I'm not sure if vibles got I'm allowed to use word viable, whether it's got a legal meaning or not, but in layman's terms of viable things to help preserve the viability of the town centre, which you spoke very extremely eloquently about. Thank you. Um, so I did remove it from here, but I will say now that the hotel rooms that are currently in use on that site, upstairs from the ground floor and on the first floor are for at least month long stays I've been told by the, the owner, how much some sample. So, they're not for tourism, they're not for a greater fight for economic vitality, viability or vitality for the town centre, therefore people who come through to work on a site, so in the, you know, in the in the area, but they're not actually providing tourism or any kind of traveling economic benefit. Okay. Um, I've got a function I know sorry I saw you then, could I just. Can I just see clarification on the word hospitality, because on Google it says broad category of fields that include hoteling serving food and beverages and lodging, please. In planning terms, whether there's no reference in planning to hospitality. What we do have, however, is the glossary to the local plan identifies what are considered to be town centre uses, and that includes obviously restaurants and shops and pubs. It also includes hotels, so hotels are identified as town centre uses in the local plan. But what we don't have is any kind of identifications to hospitality. That's a more generally the used word rather than a word that's used in, in, in planning. On my use of the, so it's why when I say hospitality, I say hospitality retail throughout my submission. Thank you. Right. I have a question around the around the parking you've said that the long stay that there's no local parking. That isn't permitted or time restricted, but obviously the officer report implies that there is. So could you identify what you think that that is in reference to you and how far away from the location, this parking is. I couldn't necessarily speak for the officer in regard to what they mean by that, but on Church Street, which the venue well Church Street and Hitchens Street on which the venue is obviously straddles. There is only permitted parking on Church Street, and that is time sensitive, except on Saturday and Sunday, though there is a push to change that to add Saturday onto the time restriction, which was obviously serious is seriously hamper. Any further parking Hitchens Street has only got time limited parking near the White Heart pub, and around that area. There is no on street parking, that is there to serve that that particular venue. Every bit of on street parking that is even remotely close is outside residential houses and they obviously use that to park for their theirs and that would push their parking obviously further afield. So it would. It would hamper residents living in their own streets, particularly. And are there any car parks in Bulldog. There is one car park behind in the Twitch hall behind the Community Centre, which obviously is time limited. It's one of our car parks, it's our only one in Bulldog in fact, which is obviously time limited. OK, and roughly how far from the site is that? I would hesitate. I mean, I can certainly look up on Google if you so wish, but it's not within convenient distance, I would say. OK, thank you. Councillor Brown. Just to clarify about the parking, is there any overnight parking in Bulldog within walking distance of this hotel? Hotel/premise, whatever it is? None that you wouldn't have severe competition for, as obviously because obviously if you're parking, you'd have to park there only once the permitted hours cease, really or just before. And obviously there's a great deal of competition, particularly on Church Street. As I say, this even today, there's eight cars parked in there that shouldn't be. So beyond the competition of even the permitted parking, there isn't actually any adequate parking that doesn't cause residents issues. OK, Councillor Mason. I know that 3.3.11 highways are not raising any objections on the proposed development on the grounds of parking, although those of us who've been on this committee for a while know that highways aren't always very robust and giving an opinion on anything. Sorry, highways, if you're watching. Is there a question in that, Nigel? No. Sorry. That's the wrong part of the meeting. Oh, sorry. Right, that was an example of a statement, not a question that is better suited to the debate portion of a planning committee meeting. Sure, would I be correct in thinking that? If you expect Councillor Willoughby to answer that because we're questioning him at the moment. I agree, Councillor Mason. I'll be recovering from last week still. Let's not slide into pass at this early stage of the night. Councillor Tyson, please. Yes, Councillor Willoughby. One of the reasons for calling this in that you state is the concerns raised by residents in Ballock about the proposed development. Could you just detail the extent of those concerns and how many people have contributed or been responded to the consultation? So, obviously, this is an informal consultation through on the door conversations. Many residents have been concerned about the way that so obviously there's certain parts of this. There's general concern about our town centre losing viable retail space. And, you know, obviously we've seen several pubs and restaurants close over the last few years. There is also concern about and to be clear, this is not why I have called this in, but there's concerns about the how the owner of these sites has approached venues in the in the town. Though, to be clear, that is not why I called it in. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Any further questions for Councillor Willoughby? Nope. Great. Right. In that case, I shall move on to the applicants agent, which is James Graham. And as per Councillor Willoughby, you've got 10 minutes, should you need them. I'll give you a warning if you're close to time. Thank you, Chair. And good evening, members. Your offices have provided clear reports with recommendations for approval of planning permission and listed building consent. The scheme is for only part change of use of the current large restaurant area to provide for accessible hotel rooms, together with a new commercial unit to provide a shop and wine bar alongside the retained restaurant area. In regard to the reason for the call in by Councillor Willoughby, I address the points in turn. Loss of commercial and employment floor space, the reduced size restaurant is to enable the restaurant to be a viable entity. The owner has marketed the existing size for over two years and the feedback is that it's just too large a space to take on as a viable business. The plans for the reduced size restaurant has attracted firm interest from operators as they can comfortably take on the restaurant of the proposed size. From years of experience, the front seating was always most popular, the front most part of the building, with the rear section always being so quiet in this very large restaurant area. The proposal actually creates another smaller unit, which is to be a cheese deli shop with wine bar evening use. The proposed operator has been in constant contact with the applicant in the last year wanting to lease this new unit. Therefore, the proposal reduces the current overall commercial area, but to an actual viable size for these operators to take on. The restaurant would still be of a very good size at 165 square meters in total floor space. This viable solution will enable the building to reopen as an integral part of Bouldocks High Street and overall vitality. Therefore, employment floor space would be reduced but in no way removed. Employment opportunities would of course return with a reopening of this ground floor in this viable layout as two businesses. This is together with providing four further hotel rooms to the current overall hotel use of the building. These would be accessible rooms being to the ground floor for customers with any mobility issues or disability, which is a sought after facility of hotel accommodation. These hotel rooms, not only makes the size of the restaurant viable, but also makes perfect use of that rear area, rear part of the building. As stated by your officers, the development sits entirely within the provisions of policy ETC 5, and is therefore acceptable in its principle. The setting of the building within the conservation area reason. This is acceptable to the conservation officer as the, the insertion of two rear windows for the rear hotel rooms is the only external alteration required. The enabling of the reopening of this building with its retained active frontage will be of great benefit for the setting of the listed building within the Bouldock conservation area and nearby heritage assets. The long history of the building as a hospitality venue reason. This will continue as the use maintains the current overall use of the building as a hotel and restaurant with a newly created commercial unit as well. It must be recognized that the redesigning of Bouldock town center and introduction of two hour parking restriction has significantly reduced the viability of the town center in terms of sit down restaurants during day times, with many needing a takeaway option in order to survive. Hence the opening of so many coffee shops due to this restricted daytime duration for customers. Therefore, any restaurant operator must do their feasibility for realistic customer numbers, and can only really rely on evening trade whilst paying full rents rates and utility bills of course. Concerns raised by residents in Bouldock about the proposed development, as touched upon already in discussion that there was only one public comment made on the application of neutral comments. There are therefore no publicly made concerns of the application indeed residents of Bouldock frequently asked the applicant for the, for the opening of the George. This scheme will enable this to happen. In summary, the applicant is thoroughly considered all layout combinations for the ground floor of this building. No other layout works as a viable entity, other than this proposal. The development will enable this focal building of Bouldocks town center to be brought back into operation as a viable size restaurant, together with a new commercial unit and for accessible hotel rooms. This will only benefit the vitality of the town center, with its social and economic benefits, with employment creation once again, and with no dis-benefits of the scheme. The application is in accordance with North Arts local plan and the MPPF, and is therefore acceptable for the grant of planning permission and listed building consent, as recommended by your officers. Just to touch upon the, the other points, just raised, the, in terms of marketing of the premises, this was all submitted as evidence on the previous application, which did seek to, which was for park residential, which is now not the case. It's to the hotel rooms instead, but that did demonstrate the previous marketing exercise that the applicant has gone through. And there were letters of feedback from perspective. At least, to lease the premises, giving their feedback and the general theme in there is that, look, it's just too larger size for the town, is a town but a small town, and it's a too larger size to take on such a, such a size and that precise location and, and an environment. This was all covered in, as part of the previous application, which was withdrawn because we then worked with officers to reach an acceptable scheme in both conservation terms and, and an actual use terms as well. And just the other points of, and just to further on it, the building wouldn't have been closed all this time if there was an operator willing to take on the building. It would not have been just sat closed all this time for, for that reason. It would have been up and running and brought back to life again, if it was into a viable way. The access to the utility services point, this will still be perfectly accessible by the hotelier, the owner of the building, because the utility services are within the access way of where the new hotel rooms would be, so they wouldn't be within the subdivided part for the, for the restaurant or the new commercial unit of the cheese and wine bar. On-street parking, I believe, yet that has become an issue in the town, particularly during day times, as I touched upon, but I believe that in the evenings, after a certain time, you can park with unrestricted, if you can find a space, admittedly, yes. But there are plenty of lay-by spaces and unrestricted parking until an early morning, which of course you would need to move your car by, but if that is for commuters and professionals staying at the hotel, they can clearly be off and out in the morning to, to avoid that and any parking issues. Obviously, the Bulldog has a train station and being a generally highly sustainable location. In terms of any longer stay hotel guests, I don't see that as a problem at all. And they'd be of course spending in the local area in a similar way, short, short stay hotel customers and guests, because they'll be spending on meals, meals out, either in restaurants, cafes, takeaways and the like, and any form of recreation activities as well, if they're there for a longer period of time. That concludes my presentation. Just a final point, just for officers, I do have the revision of the plan being C and not B, just in terms of decision wording. And that concludes presentation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Do colleagues on the Planning Committee have any questions for the applicant? Yes, Councillor Brown. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that presentation. I'd like to ask a bit more about the hotel rooms. So how many rooms are currently in the building as that would be brought back into use as hotel rooms? And you're saying there are four in there will there will be four new ones that are entirely accessible. Does that mean they would be suitable for disabled residents? Would they have things like wet rooms as well? Or is it purely ground floor access? Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the total, I believe it's around 20 existing rooms. And in terms of the ground floor, it's envisaged that as the larger rooms would be to the front, they would easily lend themselves to being disability compliant and DDA compliant, but generally being on the ground floor for any general mobility issues, the front or the rear hotel rooms would be a useful facility for those looking for hotel accommodation that do need it on the ground floor wherever possible. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Um, Councillor Billings? To kind of touch upon the disabled access again with that, but not with the hotel, I know I can see that it's going through disabled access for the restaurant and the cheese and wine bar. Is there anything for that? Because I don't see anything on the plan. Not that I'm aware of to be covered, I think it would revert back to the previous arrangements, if any, for that, for any rear access from when it was up and running as a restaurant. So I'm sure that that was feasible, but may not be through the front, may not have been through the actual main entrance. Okay, Councillor Tyson? Yes, I have a question, I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant, in fact, to this planning application, or to our decision. Did you say or have I read that an operator or potential operator had already come forward to take on the lease of the wine bar and deli? That's correct, Councillor Tyson, and within the last year or so while we've been working on providing, working with officers and, and coming up with what we feel is an overall balanced and sensitive scheme all round, the there is a prospective operator, I don't know, name or company name, I think it's obviously a small operator as a couple, as a small business, they are very keen, to say the least, to be taking on the unit and they can't wait for it to be up and running. And they're constantly asking the applicant, when, when will this be, when will it be approved, and so that they can crack on with the works and to get it up and running, hence the desire for the pre-commencement conditions to be avoided, if possible, so that we can do it so that they can at least make a start on the overall building to bring it back back into use and to life again. Yes. Can I just follow that up with the obvious complimentary question, which would be, has anyone come forward for the restaurant? There's been several expressions of firm interest from a few, from different operators. There's not anyone obviously signed in terms of leasing and as definite as that, obviously, it would be premature, but that is ready to take forward with serious interest of restaurateurs that are comfortable with this size space instead of being completely put off by the overly large space of the current situation. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Graziano. Good evening. Thank you, Chair. Just a question to the applicants representative. You talk about bringing in tourism and customers. Do you have any projected footfall data pre and post for the committee please? I don't have that information, I'm afraid. No, it would just be to the new commercial unit would of course be adding a business and attracting footfall to this area and only of benefit as a win-win situation for the overall town's vitality, really. Thank you. Councillor Peace. Thank you. I just wondered if you could comment on the way the existing hotel rooms are used and the length of the stay there. I believe we heard that the existing rooms are currently stayed in on quite a few weeks' time at a stretch. So the use of cars there would differ from somebody who was just staying for one night and then leaving. Is that what typically happens, people stay in those rooms for a long time? I believe since Covid changed the kind of general travel patterns and working from home situations I believe the model has moved to more medium length stays, yes, rather than overnight. It will of course occur as well. It's a mix, but that has suited those wanting some longer term accommodation in the area, which of course they are travelling, spending in our local economy from anywhere in the country to travel here to carry out their work for a period of time and then to leave and other customers come in. So it's generally has been recently of that nature, yes. Can I come back on that? Can I just ask what you mean by medium or long term? As what was discussed before of three, four weeks at a time, I believe, yes. Okay. All right. I'm not seeing any further questions being indicated, so I'm going to take advantage and ask one from the chair. So I've had a hunt round on the planning portal looking at the previous application, the reference for which was provided within our papers. I can't see on there any documents about any market research that was conducted, but equally I wouldn't necessarily place weight on that, given that that was when we were looking at a change of use from commercial to residential for the whole lot. So I don't think that that's a relevant comment for us to be relying on, but the question in here is around the point that you made about having considered various different layouts and to know where the layout would work. So has, for example, a third commercial retail unit been explored and was there any viability in there or has the applicant just sought to jump straight to hotel rooms for the remainder of the space? Thank you. Yes. It was felt that footfall and general frontage wise and also alterations that would likely be needed to that side of the building from just its double doors entrance currently, it was not felt that that has a particular frontage, so to speak, to be brought into a commercial use in terms of the more front of the building commercial uses. So it was sought to increase, take the opportunity to have these as hotel rooms and, as I say, accessible in terms of mobility issues slash disability rather than an actual frontage, which would then delve into probably quite major alterations needed to create an actual either shop front or frontage to that side of the building, which would have listed building implications. I'm going to take advantage again and just reference back to Councillor Graziani's question around footfall. You said previously that there was no footfall data, but now you're saying that footfall has been considered. So what is it? I'm saying that it was considered in a general sense, but not actual data collected on it. And I'm just going to note that Councillor Allen has attended, but as she's not been present, up until this point, won't be able to be involved in the debate or vote on this particular item. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, just confirming attendance error on my part. I apologise. No, I have not been present. I will not be voting. I'll be abstaining on this item. Thank you. Right. So, do your colleagues have any further questions for the applicants representative? Yes, Councillor McDonnell. Can you just point out on the plan or let us know on the plan where the reception is for these rooms? Thank you. Thank you. There's no dedicated reception there that would require further alterations or take up the hallway space. There is the, I believe they're generally, that's dealt with on the other, on the first floor of the building. But in terms of any desk, I actually don't know where it, there isn't space to provide that on the ground floor as part of this. I'm not sure if it would be as some kind of self-check-in type system. I envisage for the ground floor rooms, at least. Yes. So for a tea, if somebody came who wasn't able to use the stairs, they'd have to self-check in. Quite possibly, yes, but that's fine to use in terms of any entry system, et cetera. The doors will be it's at level disabled access shown to there. And actually a staff member can be provided, of course, to or notification of arrival, et cetera, things like that. And that can easily be dealt with in terms of assisting for the entrance, both into the building and into the rooms itself, where it's a full disabled customer. But it's just generally that the mobility, any mobility issues is just a generally sought after benefit. If you could have that on the ground floor of seeking accommodation. Thank you. I'm just looking at the plan as well, actually, and I can see that there's a laundry space on the ground floor. Could you clarify what the use of the laundry would be for? Yes, that's for hotel laundry as a utility space as just not needed as part of the rooms and en suite. So it gives another storage area, laundry, utility space of the overall hotel. And would residents of the hotel have access to that laundry space? I don't believe so, no, it would be for the hotel use for re-servicing of rooms. OK, I've got a line of questioning going, but I'm going to hold it and give Councillor Fernandez an opportunity. Thank you, Chair. Just looking at the plan on there, the residents of the hotel rooms, presumably they would expect to get breakfast. I wonder how they are going to access the restaurant. Certainly if they are disabled and there is no level access into the restaurant from Church Street. Have I misunderstood that? Will they be catered for the residents? I don't believe that it would be. No, it's not a breakfast meals option within the actual hotel. They can, of course, frequent the restaurant or anywhere else in the town, obviously. The disability point is literally only for those seeking ground floor accommodation, if possible. It's no doubt more of a rarity in hotels for that to only be on the ground floor option. So to provide this on the ground floor seemed to be as an attractive benefit if you had mobility/disability issues and were looking for the ground floor only accommodation. But it's not provided. There's no separate dedicated restaurant area for the hotel itself. Thank you. That sort of fits in with the line that I'm currently going down, I think. I'm going to be slightly blunt. I'm going to be slightly direct. Please don't take offence at the question. Bearing in mind the questions that we've just been asking around this and comparing and contrasting with what the committee members clearly understand normal hotel operation to be. Are these legitimate hotel rooms or are these bedsits by the back door? No, these are legitimate hotel rooms as part of the overall larger main use of the building as a hotel and restaurant. The restaurant is seeking to be reduced in order to be into a viable size and in its place is adding to the existing hotel use of hotel rooms on the ground floor. I can see people's opinions forming and I feel like I think we've probably got to a point where it's dangerous to continue pursuing this especially given I just asked a leading question and got the answer to that that I was expecting to hear given the way that I asked it. Do colleagues have any further questions for the applicant before I move us into debate? Alright then, thank you very much. So I shall pop over to the officers first to respond to any issues raised. Sure. So I'll touch on the matter just discussed. So within the use class of a hotel there is no actual definition of what is kind of a normal tenure that you stay in. So the class of the hotel could be even just an overnight stay up to a month. And, of course, if people are concerned that this is a way of getting another use out of the sites then, of course, this would be a breach of the planning commission and is not kind of just it would be enforceable because it is a hotel class proposed. With regards to our touch on Councillor Willoughby's points. So also with the last application and I understand and I spoke to Councillor Willoughby, there was this concern that there was a kind of a piecemeal approach to eroding the building and the use. I spoke to the conservation officer about this and in their actual comments. The matter of it being kind of a stud wall construction was seen favourably because it's quite easy to undo. I'm not sure why you'd need to but that was given weight. And, of course, the matter of bringing the building back into use. The Street View pictures I showed from November 2021, so two and a half years ago. So, of course, we'd give positive weight to the fact that a listed building that's been vacant for some time would be brought back into use and, of course, made good. You no longer have the whitening of the windows, and it will just be improved externally and internally. It's acknowledged that Councillor Willoughby's comment about the viability because the development is acceptable in principle, both with regards to the restaurant use, which is in secondary frontage, which policy ETC 5 permits and the hotel use not being within that. As I say, the development's acceptable in principle from a planning perspective. And then from a heritage perspective, conservation officer considered the internal alterations, the changes of use to be acceptable. And therefore, I wouldn't say viability information is necessary. And I would say that there was a kind of a positive approach taken because with the last application, there was concern raised by us about proposed layouts. The loss of historic fabric and following negotiations and consultation, the current proposal is considered acceptable in planning terms and heritage terms. The matter of parking is acknowledged. The restaurant use does benefit from on-street parking, which has Councillor Willoughby and Mr Grant said is time limited with regards to hotel use. I would consider this quite a sustainable location. I just popped up on Google Maps. There's quite a few bus stops nearby. The railway station is relatively walkable, but again, you could take a bus there. There are other sustainable transport options for people who are staying there. I did acknowledge that there was a tenant lined up for the cheese and wine bar. This is welcomed, at least there's that certainty there. I couldn't actually find the marketing information from the last application, but this probably was a GDPR casualty, or it was just started. Not sure if it just wasn't published and it was for internal use to consider that I can't be certain of that. But otherwise, and also, yes, correct. It is plan reference rev C, but of course this will be confirmed on the decision notice. Yeah, that completes my point. Thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues. So now at the point where I need somebody to come up with a motion on this. And what I'm looking for is either a motion to approve, refuse or defer the application. So, I've got two lights on. Right. I'll go to Councillor Brown, you got in first. Thank you, chair. So, having heard what I've heard tonight, I feel that this is obviously a very important building in Bulldog. It's really central to Bulldog. In fact, I walked past it the other day. Beautiful building. It's been vacant for two years. Bringing it back into use should be welcomed. The fact that we've got someone lined up to take on the cheese and wine bar, that's an extra venue in Bulldog. Some accessible ground floor, hotel rooms. And there's no objection from our conservation officer. I take the parking point, but it is a sustainable location. You could arrive by train quite easily and walk there. As did I the other day. So, I would like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation to grant this application. Okay, I'm looking for a seconder now. Are you looking to second, Councillor Tyson? Yes, I'm happy to second that. You are. And reserve my right to speak. And reserve your right to speak. Excellent. Thank you very much. Right, colleagues. So, we've had a motion proposed and seconded. Do we have any debate on this? Yes, Councillor Graziano. I've still got a question. So, with it being a hotel, what we're saying is, if I'm disabled, I've only got the ground floor. But if there's a team of us and we're disabled, I can't go upstairs because there's no elevator. That's my point. I think that's a fair point around access. I think that there was a comment made that things would be DDA compliant but only within the rooms. But I didn't hear that that was a firm commitment or that the plans were already in place to ensure that those spaces were. It's more a case of if we have hotel rooms on the ground floor, if my understanding is correct, then the applicant is saying because they're on the ground floor, by virtue of them being downstairs, those with disability issues and the less mobile are able to access them. And I think, as well, we heard the points around the lack of a ground floor reception and vague responses about virtual or sort of effectively contactless check-ins as well. Hence my slightly cheeky question. Councillor Mason. Thanks, Chair. Slightly, slightly divided lines. I do share some of the concerns. I think the parking issue is it's not as satisfactory as I would like. We can say it, one can get to Bulldog by train or by bus, but sadly, lots of people choose to come by car. So the lack of parking worries me slightly. And I also think that this is something of an opaqueness about the future hotel use, which would sit slightly uncomfortable with me. However, trying to balance that with the fact that on the officer's recommendations, there doesn't appear to be any grounds to refuse it. And also, you know, one of our aims collectively is to improve and make our town centres viable and have usage. And I tend to think if a business is prepared to put their money in, they clearly think it's financially viable or they wouldn't be doing it. I'm not sure that's a material consideration, but it's just a common sense one. So I think on balance, I'm not really seeing any grounds to reject it. OK, not seeing anyone else indicating at this point in time, I think. Thank you, Councillor Billings. I understand your point, Councillor Mason. However, I believe Tom brought up the fact that it was noted about the car parking situation, that that isn't actually referenced really in the report itself that I'm looking at. And so I feel that it could be a concern that, you know, you've got an increased amount of people going to the restaurant. You've got food like a cheese and wine bar. And then if indeed the stay is a day to a month, you know, how many people are then going to be actually be using those rooms, then use the parking when there isn't any during the day, really? So that's something that isn't necessarily referenced in our details. OK, Councillor Tyson, you wanted to come back in now? Oh, yeah, I just wanted to say that I agree with the comments from Councillors Brown and Mason. And I would say that looking at this, it's entirely policy compliance, as far as I can tell. And in particular, I'm thinking of the local plan SP4 to promote, protect and enhance the provision of shops, restaurants and drinking establishments. I think this is a useful and quite exciting addition to offering in Bulldog. I know that the building is, you know, is held in great affection by many residents of Bulldog. And that will be a popular addition once opened. I've got to say also, I just wanted to refer to Policy EGC 5 as well, which says the same sort of thing. And then also that the questions or speculation about the motives of the applicant or owner are not planning considerations. And we can't be drawn down a line of thinking that says, well, what if this? What if that? You know, we don't we don't find his conduct in the past something that we approve of or whatever. I don't know that I don't know this guy, but I'm just referring to the planning training that was conducted only a couple of weeks ago. And that is just something that I think we shouldn't be allowing ourselves to be influenced by, if anyone were to think that way. Thank you, Councillor Tyson. Councillor Pease. So I'm also minded to accept this recommendation. I think it's much better for us to have this building back into commercial use rather than standing empty as it does. My only concern has been the line of questioning that's gone along the lines of whether these rooms might be more of a bedsit nature than a hotel nature. And I was comforted by the notion that if use of the rooms does breach planning conditions, then some sort of enforcement could be taken, which is what I believe I heard. Alright, I'm seeing no further indications that anyone wants to speak in the debate. So we've had the officers recommendations proposed and seconded. I think the majority of the conversation this evening has actually been focused really on whether the committee is comfortable with the proposed split out. And well, my understanding of the objections is that there's no been no objection to the two commercial units in there. It is purely centred on that third split out part in respect of the hotel usage. And I think we've had clear advice around what a hotel ought to be used for, and there are consequences if the planning consents, if granted, would be breached. And it's not for us to determine and to try and police an event before it occurs. It's merely for us to determine whether or not the proposed application is policy compliant, and to balance the potential harms with the potential benefits of that. So I'm seeing no further one else indicating wishing they want to debate this further. Can we move to a vote, please? I'm going to close the poll on the next question is carried chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. I'm mindful of time but I'm going to propose that we press on for the time being since we've only got one other item on the agenda this evening. And that is when I find the right page on my next. Sorry. Oh, sorry. I am very sorry, I've forgotten what I said at the start of the meeting, haven't I? Shall we do the second part, the listed building consent vote, colleagues? Thank you. Oh, Kevin, proposal and a seconder. Councillor Brown. I'm very happy to propose that we grant. And Councillor Tyson. Yes, I'll second that. Any points of debate on this one? Council Billing. I just have full clarification of what we're voting on this section, please. Yes. So bear with me. Let me if somebody's got the main report pack while to save me jumping in here. There we go. Okay, so this is on the this is listed buildings. Yes, this is the associated yet the planning. Yeah, so what the listed building consents. So this is the second report that's in the report packs, which is planning reference 24/00182/LBC, which is just the listed building consents. So that stuff to do with the change of the windows, etc. Because we've got the change of not change, the internal layout issues and the planning consents. But because it's a listed building as well, we've effectively got two different things. One facilitates the other, their twinned applications, essentially. Cool. So I've had that proposed and seconded. Can we have a vote, please? That motion is carried. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you very much. Right. So that moves us on to the second part, which are the two applications in respect of 31 Hitchen Street, Paul Dock Hertfordshire SG76AQ. Again, we've got the planning permissions, which is item 240037/FP and also the associated listed building conditions. Again, I'm taking the presentations on both of these applications as a single item, but we will have a separate vote and I will remember that we are doing a separate vote on these. So can I have Alex Howard to present the report as officer? Thanks. Thank you, Chair. And good evening, members. I have one update for you, similar to my colleague to my right. Also in my report, there is no mention of the Bulldog Neighbourhood Plan. Again, this is because there are no policies in that plan that relate to change of use from commercial to residential. There are heritage policies, but given the limited external changes in the fact that this policy is consistent with policy HB1, the local plan and section 16 of the MPPF. Can we go to my slides, please? Thank you. So this is the application site, which is located on the south side of Hitchen Street in Bulldog. The building fronts the highway and extends rearward fronting and internal courtyard area. The site is great to listed and is within the conservation area. The site is also within the designated town centre area, but is not within a primary or secondary frontage. Next slide, please. So this is the principal elevation of the site with the main building to the right and the coach entrance to the left there. Next slide, please. And this photo shows an internal side door within and underneath that coach entrance that you just saw. Next slide, please. And this just shows the rear elevation of the building that fronts the internal courtyard. Next slide, please. And this photo also shows that same rear elevation. This part of the building is already self-contained flat. Next slide, please. Again, this just shows another view of the internal courtyard and the rear elevations of the building. Next. And this photo shows the view from within the internal courtyard, looking back towards Hitchen Street with the coach entrance just in the centre of that photo. This is the site location plan and the existing floor plan. So you can see on the bottom left, you've got the restaurant bar area kitchen leading to the rear and store. And then in the top right, you've got the existing first floor plan, which is the residential unit as existing. Next slide, please. These are the existing elevations just of that internal rear courtyard area. Next slide, please. And these are the proposed floor plans for the two units. So you can see that bottom right, which was a store of the restaurant is going to be proposed to be incorporated into that existing unit as Unit 2 and the remaining floor space into Unit 1. Next slide, please. This is the existing and proposed basement plan. Next slide, please. And this is the proposed elevations, which shows the extent of changes to the three windows on that rear internal elevation. Next slide, please. And this is the proposed parking plan, which was submitted at the request of the highway authority who were re-consulted on that and have no objections. Next slide, please. And that is the end of my presentation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Do colleagues have any questions? No. Okay, I'm not seeing anybody indicating. So, excuse me. In that case, can I invite Councillor Willoughby to present as before you've got up to 10 minutes. Thank you, Chair. You will have seen that planning permission was previously granted for this site to become housing, and that this has now lapsed. While permission was granted three years ago, this was during a very different landscape for our district and Bulldog more specifically. In those three years, we have seen the local plan approved and now in place. The growing Bulldog development is now in the works where had previously been on ice for a very long time, and a new Bulldog Traders Association has been started and is due to be constituted. So things have changed. If we continue to see shop space permanently removed from commercial employment use Bulldog Towne's business centre will quickly become unviable. And if this happens, the growing Bulldog development will not have a local community in which its residents can contribute and thrive. Conversion of a commercial space to residential use goes a long way to threatening that viability in which strong economic activity plays a fundamental role. Section 6 of the MPPF states planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which business can invest and expand and adapt, so significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Section 7 states planning and policies and decisions to support the role that town centres play at the heart of local communities by taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation, and retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, reintroduce or create new ones. Section 5, part 76 of the MPPF states local planning authorities are not required to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years worth of housing for decision making purposes if the following criteria are met. Their adopted plan is less than five years old and that adopted plan identified at least a five year supply of specific deliverable sites at the time that its examination concluded. Which obviously we have done. These sections are strongly applicable to this application. We will see over 3,000 homes built onto Bulldog in the growing Bulldog development. This means that our housing need for the town will be met without having to convert our vital commercial and employment sites. Additionally, there is no evidence that this venue could not host a viable business, and I believe that should be the focus here. Supporting something that will contribute to the prosperity of our town centre, not permanently remove it from use, diminishing our local commercial offerings further because it is incredibly important that we ensure that we have sites for businesses to occupy in our town centre. In section 4.3.7 of the report, it states the current function is deemed to be unsustainable and the venue has been subject to several changes in ownership in the last decade, none of which have been successful. That's a quote that is provided within the report. My question is the current function is deemed to be unsustainable by whom? There is no clear argument to suggest a lack of viability. Section 4.3.7 of the report also states there are other restaurants and public houses available within convenient walking distance. Section 4.3.10 of the report states that this site is just off the main parade of shops. While it is said that this is not part of the primary or secondary shop frontage, what is clearly being described here is a town centre business venue. There are other businesses that exist with competing venues within short walking distance because it is part of the town centre. Section 4.3.8 of the report states it should also be noted that this site was built as a two-storey house. This is immaterial. There has been hospitality business in this venue for more than 35 years and that's just what I could think of. This venue has been left empty for the last three years because the applicant put in an application for a change of use and left it empty rather than commit to works. Prior to this application, it is difficult to suggest why the previous businesses may have failed. But that does not suggest that no viable business could exist in that space, only that the previous tenants were unable to make it work. There is a clear risk that this site may lie empty for three years again before we have the same scenario as we do tonight. However, in that time, we do know that we will see the beginning of the growth of the town and a demand for enhanced local amenities, which this could serve as a commercial employment space. I again remind the committee that once our commercial hospitality retail employment space is gone, it will be gone for good. Thank you very much. Do colleagues have any questions for Councillor Willoughby? No. Right. I'm seeing nobody indicate. So I'll move on then to Neil Gaskell as the applicant's agent. And again, Neil, you've got 10 minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everybody. I'd like to start by accepting that, although the venue does fall within the defined town centre, it is on the very edge of that town centre and the commercial units that used to reside near to that building have now disappeared and it's very much an outlier of a building on the edge. So footfall, as pointed out in paragraph 4.3 10 is very limited in that area. It's not on a route to the train station. Very few people would use it as a sort of shop if that was one alternative for it to be used on its current use as a bar. There is very limited outdoor space. In fact, as you saw in the courtyard, that courtyard is surrounded by residential. There's a family house at the end of that courtyard, so it's not really appropriate for smoking or seating outside. And as a restaurant, the floor area is very limited and we got I think there were about 18 covers that could be taken within the floor area, which was unsustainable for the two restaurants, which attempted to run the bar following the closure of the - sorry, run the restaurant following the closure of the bar. The main reason is that to talk for Councillor Willoughby about the reasons for it not being sustainable as a bar, as pointed out in 4.3 18, the Environmental Protection Group Department issued a notice in respect of statutory nuisance, and eventually that went to the licenses subcommittee. Conditions were placed on the premises license and it's made it very difficult to run as a venue, no music, you're not allowed outside, all the windows are to be sealed, and one of the conditions was to upgrade the acoustic treatment between the flat above and the premises below. It's very difficult if any of you have been in the venue, my head touches the ceiling, so to create any acoustic separation suitable to mitigate the sound of a bar and restaurant is now an impossible to achieve. The licenses lapsed obviously, as we've gone into this stage, and we were in discussions when the license's notice of the decision was made and that was pointed to the owner at the time, that it was unlikely that a license would be given again in the current guise of the restaurant, so that's one of the reasons that it's not viable and it can't be utilised. We'd also point out that there have been no objections by the public on this, to any of the applications, also an article in The Comet, which outlined it, there were no comments and I think we all know that below the line on those things tend to be quite vociferous and there was nobody objected to that, so there's no public demand to retain this premises. Finally there's no article 4, or it's certainly not seen as an ACV, but as it's listed the conservation officer would have materially understood that the historical communal value of the asset is important, and they've applied very low significance to that, and actually finally there has been no commercial interest, the owner of the property would have had anybody in there, they've lost a considerable amount of money as it sits empty, and if somebody would have come forward, and as it's been marketed to use that site they would have quite happily allowed them to use it, so yes it's not viable for those reasons, so thank you very much. Thank you very much. Right, I shall move us over to questions. First I've got Councillor Tyson. Thank you, and thanks for your presentation, just one point of clarification, I've got two questions for you, you mentioned the term ACV, just for the members and anyone listening, I think that stands for asset of community value. Can you explain what the significance of that would be? So an asset of community value is where certainly public houses or things that are seen in the group, people can put forward that they wish to retain that for its current use and they will then get priority going. So I think it's very interesting taking advantage and using it and also, it has some stay in in retaining that use and it's not being sorted, nobody has come forward or shown any interest in doing so. Secondly, just on the subject of the licensing situation, so you said the license has lapsed, and the license that lapsed had got conditions imposed on it, which would make it very difficult to, or unattractive to run. So that's a restaurant premises. Okay, and then the license runs with the premises, not any operators, is that right? There was the premises license holder was Mr Plant, but within the conditions on that there were works to the building and premises that were required. Okay, and then you said that you thought it was unlikely that the license would be issued again? Mr Plant when in the meeting at the licensing review was informed that it got to such a serious state that the building is surrounded on all sides by residential properties to the rear, inside the courtyard you saw from the rear, those windows are residential above, it's completely enclosed by residential properties, and it's very poorly acoustically insulated being a 600 year and some parts property. There is a lot of history from the licensing department. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. Do colleagues have any further questions for the applicant on this? Nope. Seeing nobody indicate. Okay, great. So, can I pass back over for for a summary then please. Thank you chair, um, just one point to touch on from Councillor Willoughby's comments about the changing local plan circumstances from the previous decision which lapsed. And this one. This is acknowledged in my report for three six. Obviously that previous decision was considered under safe policies, and the emerging policies which are now our current local plan policies, which are considered at length in the principle of development section taking all material considerations into account, including which I think is quite important while bringing a list of building back into some kind of reasonable use. And I would echo what Mr Gaskell said about the fact that this site is a bit, it appears to be a bit of an outlier, you know, it's in a town centre area, but it's not a secondary frontage. When they were doing the local plan if they wanted to give it that kind of protection they would have and for some reason they didn't. This is probably part of the reason why. So, I think that's what I'd like to really say at this point. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, right. So, again, as before, I would like somebody to propose a motion whether that's to approve, refuse or defer. Here we go, Councillor Brown. I'd like to propose that we accept the officers recommendation to grant on the grounds that, as we've heard it's surrounded in all sides by residential properties it's an outlier it's not really suitable for an entertainment venue. It's had license restrictions which make it not viable. I cannot see any reason why we should refuse this. I think it's policy compliant. I take the point about the local plan that it was granted when we had a need for more housing and I take the point that Council will be made that there's going to be a lot more houses in B Iraq in the next 10 years at least. But I still don't think that that's a reason not to bring this back into residential use so I would like to propose that we accept the recommendation to grant. Lovely, thank you. I've had that proposed. Councillor Allen, are you looking to second? I am yes and reserve my right to speak. Yeah, lovely, thank you. Right, so we've had that proposed and seconded. Is there any debate colleagues? I will go Councillor Mason. I probably should ask this as a question earlier. I've got. I missed my opportunity. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to admit I looked on Google, Google Earth, but I did to try and work out what the nearest other commercial retail property is along those roads. And I can't find anything particularly close in either direction on either side of the road. That isn't all very little of the property unless I'm getting wrong. It seemed to me that the properties along there are mostly now residential. I just wondered if anybody can can tell me I'm wrong, but it looked to me that is mostly a residential street in that partner, and therefore I would be minded to go along with what Councillor Brown said. I think Councillor Willoughby pulled a face but can't tell you that you're wrong at this point in time because he's not allowed to speak. However, I can say that there is, well, Sean's indicating, there's a pub along there, there's a cosmetic business practice. I think there's a wool shop or haberdasher's, also some sort of children's shop and it's like, the closer you get to the roundabout at the end of Hitchin Street up to the high street, the closer, I think you're looking at approximately, what would you say? About 20, 50 metres from this one to the next commercial, Sean. The nearest commercial property heading in towards the centre of the town centre is the White Hart public house. And the three dwellings between this property and that public house fronting on Hitchin Street. Lovely. Councillor Allen. Thank you, Chair. I think this is going to be suitable application. I think that the comments about it not being sustainable as a business and it'd be better off as a residential dwelling are right. I think the string of unsuccessful businesses that have tried to operate of said unit are a testament to that. I think this makes sense. We've not long passed a motion at the Council regarding empty properties and the issues that they cause, and as this has been empty now for a few years, I can only imagine there's probably going to be some issues arising if something doesn't get done with it soon. I would imagine that's probably not been public rejection much because it has been empty for a few years and it's not going to feel much different to residents. However, if a bar or restaurant were to go in there, I think there probably would be public rejection if it's surrounded by, as we've seen, residential dwellings. So I'll be voting in favour of this. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Tyson. Yeah. Just a brief comment on the housing situation. Obviously, in terms of numbers, this is, you know, hardly significant. But in terms of the nature of the accommodation that would be offered, I think that is significant because one bedroom accommodation is very hard to find in the district, particularly in the sort of bulldog part of it. So I think that that does carry some sort of weight in this conversation. Thank you very much. Right. I think that's everyone. Shall I allow a brief pause? No. Okay. Right. In that case, I've had the motion proposed and seconded, so could we please move on to a vote on the motion to grant permission in respect of the first part of the application? I didn't mean to push that button. Thank you. Not a very bad force of habit. I meant to abstain on that, but push the wrong button because I was busy looking at the next part, but never mind. Right. So that was the first part of the way. We've now got the listed building consents part of the application. Could I have a proposer and seconder on that, please? Councillor Brown. I'm very happy to propose that we grant. Yep. And council billing. We'd second. Yep. Lovely. Thank you. Any debate? No. Can we move to a vote, please? That motion is granted. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you very much. So that's the substantive business in terms of the applications. The final item that we have on the agenda for this evening is the one carried over from last week's meeting. And that is our planning appeals tracker. So you should have all received that via email if you didn't get that. It is on last week's documents as well on on mod gov. So can I pass over to Sean to present the report for noting, please? Thank you, chair. This is an item for information. We've got a list of five applications that have been lodged since the last well, since the meeting in April. And they're all through the written representations procedure for new members who aren't particularly familiar with the appeals procedure. There's three appeals procedures. There's the written procedure, which is the base level, which is an exchange of written statements. The next level is the hearing procedure, which involves an exchange of written statements and a hearing that is held. That's presided over by an inspector and it's a roundtable discussion. And the higher level procedure is public inquiry. That is almost a semi-judicial process that involves barristers and cross-examination and re-examination of expert witnesses. So as far as the appeals that have been lodged, they're all written procedure. That's the entry level and they relate to relatively modest scale developments that have been, I think, in most of these cases refused. And then the other table identifies the appeal decisions that we've had since the meeting in April. And these have all been dismissed, so our decision to refuse planning commission has been upheld by the various inspectors on those cases. And they relate to matters related to Greenbelt in one case and in the other two cases, couch and appearance, and in the final case, effect upon a neighbour. So relatively modest cases and all our decisions were upheld by the inspectors. So that's all I have with regard to that. I did mention that we do have the higher level procedure, which is a public inquiry procedure. When someone is going to lodge an appeal and ask for public inquiry, they have to give prior notification to the planning inspector and to us. And we have received a prior, it's not on this table and will be reported at the next meeting if they actually lodge the appeal. But we have had prior notification of an appeal through the public inquiry procedure. And that was an application for residential environment Reespring in Bouldock, which was reported to the Planning Control Committee. It is an application by Chalk Dean, which is a wholly owned company of the County Council, and they have indicated that they will be lodging an appeal and will be asking for a public inquiry to look into the refusal of planning commission with regard to that one. The reason for refusal related to the failure to deliver the required amount of affordable housing. They, I think, proposed two units on a scheme which should have required. Well, a lot more than that. 40% or 40%. My mass is not very good, as you probably say. Yes. So very much an underprovision against our policy. And that's what members refused it on. So watch that space, I think is what I'm saying. Thank you. Lovely. Thank you very much, Sean. So do colleagues have any questions or points that you'd like Sean to clarify on that? Yes. Councillor Brown. Can I just ask when will we know whether that's public enquiries going ahead? We should know by the next meeting of this committee, by the 18th of July. They're supposed to give 21 days notice prior notification of the intention to lodge an appeal. Sometimes they back off and don't lodge it. For example, last year we received a notification that the applicant for the Sperbury Hill solar farm was going to lodge an appeal against the refusal of that. But they decided that they wouldn't in the end and they didn't. It doesn't always come to fruition because they have second thoughts when they start to look at the case. But I will certainly update members at the next meeting. Thank you. I think that would be quite helpful. Any further questions for Sean? Right. And as this one's just an information note, and it is just for noting, I'm not going to make us vote on it unless I'm screened up by officers that I absolutely must do that. No? No? Good. Right. So I think we're quite happy to note that. Thank you very much and we'll keep on top of documents as they come through. Thank you very much for your attention this evening, colleagues. That's all of our business concluded. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. [ Silence ]