Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points during their presentation:

·       Details of the site were provided. It was noted that it had been vacant since 2008 and was currently a commercial shell which would require a great deal of work to return to active use

·       It was currently designated for Class E use, including for use as a café, restaurant, gym or office use

·       It was noted that it consisted of 2 storeys and was designated for town centre use under Policy DCM8

·       The application was outlined. It was explained that all external walls would be refurbished and that seating areas would be provided for customers. A roof terrace would be provided. There would be a lift on site, as well as two long corridors with service entrances. A floor extension was proposed for the area with the staircase.  Doors leading to the roof terrace were enclosed by walls to the south and east

·       A visualisation of how the building would look was provided showing new windows and lighting

·       There had been 241 objections to the application, with 59 supporting comments. Many nearby residents objected on noise grounds and some objected on parking grounds since there was no on site parking. Those who supported it did so on the grounds that it would bring a vacant building into use and provide jobs. Other pubs in Gloucester Road had been closed

·       The application needed to be assessed in land use terms rather than generic use

·       As the site was within the Gloucester Road Town Centre, it was accessible and would be served by very good public transport

·       Planning policy was now more flexible than in the past. It wouldn’t be harmful to shopping in the area. Once built, there would be under 4% public houses. A map showing public houses in the area indicated that it would be the fourth in this section of Gloucester Road and that there would remain a good mix of uses in the area. In addition, it would have wider benefits since it would create 50 full and part time jobs

·       The proposal for a public house was not a reason for refusal on planning grounds

·       Amenity – the application had been revised to seek permission for opening 0700 to 23:30 hours Sunday to Thursday and 0700 to 00:30 hours Friday and Saturday. It was proposed that the roof terrace would close at 9pm daily

·       There would be a site management plan with high security staff employed

·       A series of other measures to manage use would operate to reduce the level of noise on the roof terrace. An assessment of noise indicated that it would be lower than the World Health Organisation’s Annoyance Level, although noise nearby might be higher due to existing traffic. The noise level might be 2 decibels above background level for 2 properties near the site

·       Pollution Control had assessed the background levels of noise from proposed kitchen and extractor fans as being acceptable

·       Following various assessments, officers now believed the application could be recommended for approval subject to a monitor of the noise level through a Noise Impact Assessment

·       There would be a limit of 30 people on the roof terrace

·       The application was supported on design grounds on the basis of its existing character and appearance

·       Highways – there were no objections. Conditions were proposed to secure a travel plan, together with a Delivery and Service Strategy to ensure delivery at the appropriate times

·       There was a proposal for 6 cycle spaces

·       Energy and Sustainability – there would eb on site renewable energy regeneration

·       Proposals were required to be BREEAM compliant

·       Details of the CIL liability were provided

Officers were satisfied that the key issues had been resolved and therefore were recommending approval subject to conditions relating to highway works, a construction management plan, assessment of noise levels, a site management strategy, a service and delivery plan, a waste management plan and an odour management plan.

Officers responded to members’ questions as follows:

·       The Anchor Pub had a roof terrace which was required to close at a similar time (ie 9pm) and which was closer to the existing site

·       The noise impact assessment was that 850 would be the absolute maximum on site and would only be achieved for a very few days a year. Most of the time noise levels would be significantly below this

·       The applicant had provided dispersal data since they had other public houses but these were not heavily relied on as part of the assessment. It was noted that the noise assessment took account of the average sound of the human voice

·       Previous refusals had been due to the design of the building but the provision of screening with opaque glass and site management was in place to deal with this. There were also additional measures which would need to be covered by licensing

·       The Management Plan was in the hand of the owner but was judged against Bristol City Council’s policy. The Management Plan would be maintained in perpetuity.

·       Anti-Social Behaviour - CCTV would cover the front of the buildings. Police approval would also be required

Members made the following comments:

·       There was a case for change of use for this property since it had been vacant for so long. There was no overconcentration of pubs at this location in Gloucester Road. This would not significantly affect the amenity of residents. Therefore, this application should be supported

·       Whilst there would need to be careful monitoring of the establishment under the licensing regime, this application should be supported

·       Whilst there remained some concerns about the proposed use, there were lots of mitigation measures in place. It was good to see that the transport and design sustainability issues had been resolved. Therefore, the application should be supported

·       This was a derelict site which needed to be brought back into use and most objections were not material. Therefore, it should be supported.

Councillor Richard eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED  (8 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) – that the application be approved.