Application Number: AWDM/0484/12 & AWDM/0485/12

Transcription

1 Planning Committee 29 May 2012 Agenda Item 4 Ward: ALL Key Decision: Yes / No Report by the Executive Head of Planning, Regeneration and Wellbeing Planning Applications The Committee is requested to consider the following planning applications in accordance with the power contained within section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which states:- (1) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission:- (a) subject to sections 91 and 92 (time limits), they may grant planning permission, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit; or (b) they may refuse planning permission. (2) In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Application Number: AWDM/0484/12 & AWDM/0485/12 1 Recommendations Approve Site: Proposal: 73 Rowlands Road, Worthing AWDM/0484/12-1 illuminated facia sign and 1 non-illuminated hanging sign. AWDM/0485/12 - Change of use from A1 to A2 Estate Agents

2 1 Application Number: AWDM/0484/12 & AWDM/0485/12 Recommendation APPROVE Site: Proposal: 73 Rowlands Road, Worthing AWDM/0484/12-1 illuminated fascia sign and 1 illuminated box sign. AWDM/0485/12 - Change of use from A1 to A2 Estate Agency. Applicant: Paul Howard Ward: Heene Case Officer: M O Keeffe Not to Scale Not to Scale Reproduced fro OS Mapping with the permission of HMSO Crown Copyright Licence number LA Proposal, Site and Surroundings This application relates to a mid terrace unit on the south side of Rowlands Road between Thorn Road and Wordsworth Road. The terrace is three storeys and there are two floors of residential over.

3 The property is a vacant shop in a run of three vacant shops (71-75), the nearest two adjoining properties in either direction, Nos. 77 and 69, are in retail use. The property is not in a conservation area and it is not a listed building. It does have its original timber framed decorative shopfront with stained glass leaded fanlights and an entrance door in the side wall off a shared covered entrance area. The application site is situated within the Core area of the Rowlands Road Neighbourhood Centre (now defined in the Core Strategy as Medium Scale Centres). Permission is sought to change the use of the building to an Estate Agents Office, use Class A2. A separate advertisement application has been submitted for a new fascia and box sign. These applications have been submitted by Councillor Paul Howard who will run his own business from the site, if permitted. Consultations West Sussex County Council AWDM/0484/12 Highways has no objection and notes that the proposed luminance for the fascia sign (400cd/m 2 ) does not exceed recommendations made by the Institute of Lighting Engineers for a sign of this size in a location such as Rowlands Road. AWDM/0485/12 Highways No objection. Planning Policy: The application site is situated within the Core area of the Rowlands Road Neighbourhood Centre (CS now defines these centres as Medium Scale Centres). Key Issues / Policies Core Strategy Policy 6 deals with retail issues and in connection with Medium Scale Local Centres refers to development meeting a local need and the day to day needs of residents and contribute to social inclusion. Worthing Local Plan 2003 Saved policy S11 is applicable and this policy seeks to control the uses within the core area of the district and neighbourhood centres. The policy states that the change of use of units from A1 to other uses will not normally be permitted however, exceptions maybe granted where the use is an A2 or A3 (now A4 &A5). This

4 policy also contains a retail % of 65% and a 20m rule which seeks to resist a block of nonretail uses of more than 20 metres. Uses outside these A classes will not normally be permitted however, it does state that other uses which would enhance the vitality and viability of a shopping centre maybe permitted. Summary I have researched the monitoring on this parade and this indicates that between the A1 % was above the 65% threshold. In 2005 it had fallen to 64% but was still considered to be a vibrant centre offering the key services and functions that is expected of this level of centre. In 2007, it had fallen to 58% and at March this year was at 57%. In terms of vacancy rates it can be seen that the centre experienced a peak of vacancy at 21% in 2002 at it lowest it was 4% in 2005 it increased to 15% in 2007 but has recently fallen to 13% March The centre has been operating at below the 65% threshold since 2005 (then 64% and vacancy at lowest 4%) but still appears to be relatively healthy and continues to provide a range of services and functions expected of this type of centre. It still has the presence of multiple retailers such as; Spar. McColls, Lloyds chemists and Ladbrookes together with another local newsagents, cafes restaurants, launderette, hairdressers, fish and chips shop amongst others. It was acknowledged in the 2005 health check of the centre that the Heene Road frontage appeared to be especially healthy and provided a predominantly convenience function, away from the Town Centre. Those outlets along Rowlands Road consisted of a mix of services likely to attract custom to the centre, and varying qualities of comparison use. Recent additions to the Rowland Road section have been the Action on Deafness Service (NHS), which provides a service to the public and will attract visitors to the centre. It is not considered that the proposed change of use would impact negatively on the current functioning of this centre. In addition, the units either side of the application premises are both A1 uses (although 1 vacant at March 12) so would not breach the 20m rule. Conclusion No policy objection raised Representations None.

5 Relevant Planning Policies and Guidance South East Plan (GOSE 2009): BE1 and T4 Worthing Core Strategy (WBC 2011): Policy 6 and 16 Worthing Local Plan (WBC 2003) (saved policies): S11, TR9 and H18 National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) Planning Assessment The main issues for consideration are whether the loss of an A1 vacant shop in this location will harm the vitality of the Rowlands Road neighbourhood centre and whether the Estate Agency use proposed or the signage proposed would have any impact on neighbouring or highway amenity. The applications should be considered against Core Strategy Policies 6 and 16, South East Plan policies BE1 and T4 and saved policies S11, TR9 and H18 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Change of Use The existing shop is vacant and in a row of three vacant shops. In defined core areas of Neighbourhood Centres A2 and A3 uses will be considered where they do not result in more than 65% of the block in non retail use and where the change of use does not result in a frontage of more than 20 metres of non retail uses. Historical surveys indicate that this centre has been operating below the 65% A1 threshold since 2005 and yet still continues to provide a range of A1 and associated town centre uses, newsagents, chemists, launderette, cafes and a betting shop. Vacancy rates are currently at 13%. The proposed A2 use is a supporting town centre use which will attract visitors to the site and possibly beyond into the town centre. Though vacant either side, both units have an authorised retail use. As such it is considered that the A2 use proposed can be supported in this location and that it will not be harmful to the vitality of this parade. Highways have not raised an objection to the application and would not expect the A2 use to significantly increase traffic to the area. Short stay parking is available on the street outside the site. Advertisements It is proposed to introduce a red aluminium fascia with individual brushed stainless steel letters back halo lit with LED lights. Also proposed is an illuminated box sign on the left hand side of the frontage measuring 600mm by 700mm. The existing fascia is the original and has feature cornice dentil details and corbals either side. There are currently hand painted letters. The cornice and corbals are to be retained and will remain visible once the fascia is applied. The dentils however, will be obscured by the aluminium sign tray, but not removed or destroyed. It would certainly be preferable if these dentils remained visible but given the limited space available it does not appear

6 possible to achieve without creating a shallower fascia which would look disproportionately small. The proposed box sign is of a fairly standard size and is largely positioned at fascia level. Because of the projecting cornice it will sit slightly deeper than the fascia. This is considered to be acceptable. There are a number of box signs in the vicinity well below fascia level. APPROVE for the reason:- The proposed development would not detract from the existing local urban environment and can take place without resulting in unacceptable detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties and without detraction from highway safety. It would consequently not conflict with Core Strategy Policy 16, the relevant saved policies of the Worthing Local Plan (H16, H18, TR9) and the South East Plan (CC1, CC6, BE1, T4). Subject to Conditions:- AWDM/0484/12 Standard advertisement consent conditions AWDM/0485/ years 2. Approved Plans 3. Restricted use to exclude betting offices 4. Hours of use 7am to 10pm. 29 th May 2012 Local Government Act 1972 Background Papers: As referred to in individual application reports Contact Officers: Marie O Keeffe Senior Planning Officer (Development Management) Portland House marie.o keeffe@adur-worthing.gov.uk

7 Schedule of other matters 1.0 Council Priority 1.1 As referred to in individual application reports, the priorities being:- - to protect front line services - to promote a clean, green and sustainable environment - to support and improve the local economy - to work in partnerships to promote health and wellbeing in our communities - to ensure value for money and low Council Tax 2.0 Specific Action Plans 2.1 As referred to in individual application reports. 3.0 Sustainability Issues 3.1 As referred to in individual application reports. 4.0 Equality Issues 4.1 As referred to in individual application reports. 5.0 Community Safety Issues (Section 17) 5.1 As referred to in individual application reports. 6.0 Human Rights Issues 6.1 Article 8 of the European Convention safeguards respect for family life and home, whilst Article 1 of the First Protocol concerns non-interference with peaceful enjoyment of private property. Both rights are not absolute and interference may be permitted if the need to do so is proportionate, having regard to public interests. The interests of those affected by proposed developments and the relevant considerations which may justify interference with human rights have been considered in the planning assessments contained in individual application reports. 7.0 Reputation 7.1 Decisions are required to be made in accordance with the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and associated legislation and subordinate legislation taking into account Government policy and guidance (and see 6.1 above and 14.1 below). 8.0 Consultations 8.1 As referred to in individual application reports, comprising both statutory and nonstatutory consultees.

8 9.0 Risk Assessment 9.1 As referred to in individual application reports Health & Safety Issues 10.1 As referred to in individual application reports Procurement Strategy 11.1 Matter considered and no issues identified Partnership Working 12.1 Matter considered and no issues identified Legal 13.1 Powers and duties contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and associated legislation and statutory instruments Financial implications 14.1 Decisions made (or conditions imposed) which cannot be substantiated or which are otherwise unreasonable having regard to valid planning considerations can result in an award of costs against the Council if the applicant is aggrieved and lodges an appeal. Decisions made which fail to take into account relevant planning considerations or which are partly based on irrelevant considerations can be subject to judicial review in the High Court with resultant costs implications.