Agenda item

Application for determination:

Proposed change of use from Class E to sui generis (betting office) with internal and external alterations.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for a change of use from Class E to sui generis (betting office) with internal and external alterations.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application concerned a grade II listed building and fronted onto Northgate Street. She noted that the site was located in a primary shopping area and whilst the change of use away from retail would be regrettable, the proposal would bring a vacant historic building back into use.

The Senior Planner for Lichfields addressed the Committee in support of the application.

He argued that it should be granted for the following reasons:

- The application was in accordance with the statutory development plan and consistent with planning policy framework.

- The proposal met policy tests for change of use, including increased footfall in the area to generate income for local businesses.

- The unit was no longer considered suitable for A1 (retail) use as the vacant unit had been advertised since 2017 through marketing brochures and boards. - No proposals had been received from ARC retail aside from Boyle Sports.

- The proposal was in line with policy SD2 concerning retail and city centres.

- The applicant had worked collaboratively with the local planning officers.

- The applicant had amended the initial plans to satisfy policy SD4 in the Joint Core Strategy, which requires the design of the development to be appropriate to the setting.

- Listed building and advertisement consent had been obtained since the application was submitted.

- In respect of concerns raised regarding the existing number of betting shops in Gloucester city centre, it was noted that the establishments had reduced from 7 to 5. Therefore, the proposal would reinstate one of the closures rather than adding an additional premises.

- The change of use would contribute towards the economic development of the city, as the betting shop would create 3 full-time and 3 part-time jobs.

The Senior Planning Office responded to Members’ questions concerning whether the proposal was based on the same site as a previous application considered by the Committee for a gaming centre, how children would be prevented from entering the establishment, why the signage had not been reviewed by a conservation officer, the location of betting shops in the city, whether the Licensing Committee could review the proposal, opening times, whether a license had been applied for and listed building considerations, including whether a statutory body had been approached, as follows:

- The gaming centre proposal which had previously been considered by the Committee related to a different site.

- Age restrictions at the premises would be a licensing matter.

 - The signage review had since been resolved.

- There were two betting shops located on Westgate Street and two on Southgate. All betting shops had city centre locations.

- All gambling premises needed to adhere to the law and would need to apply for the appropriate license. This matter would be dealt with outside of the planning application process.

- In relation to the 8am-10pm operating times, the opening and closing times of surrounding properties had been taken into consideration and the proposed opening times would be in keeping with the area.

- The applicant would not apply for a license until planning permission was granted.

- The proposed works would not harm the listed building and it was noted that developing the unit would bring a historic building back into use. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that consultation had taken place with conservation officers and listed building consent had been obtained. She explained that a national authority would not be approached for an application of this scale.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Tracey raised concerns regarding unisex toilet provision and the 8am -10pm opening times. She noted that there were two churches in the area and raised concerns about bin provision and narrow pavements. She did not feel the proposed development was in keeping with the area.

Councillor Melvin expressed concern about increasing the number of betting shops in the city centre, noting that it was not the position of the council to support the establishment of gambling establishments. She also expressed the view that efforts to let the unit had been limited. Councillor Melvin commented that that the building was very attractive with a good location on Northgate Street, and she was concerned that the appearance of betting shops would not be in keeping with the area. She was also concerned about the message that granting permission might give to the public.

Councillor Hyman noted that his main concern was the listed building element of the application.

The Chair stated that he had sympathy with Members’ views but that he was mindful that that the Committee needed to deal with the application on planning grounds. He reminded Members that they needed to consider the application in front of them rather than any previous applications considered by the Committee.

The Chair moved and Councillor Tracey seconded the officer’s recommendation.

Upon that motion being put to a vote and lost, Councillor Melvin moved, and Councillor Tracey seconded a motion to refuse the application based on the detrimental impact the granting of the application would have on a Grade II listed building, the negative impact the granting of application would have on the conservation area, and the loss of retail space.

RESOLVED that: - planning permission be refused due to the detrimental impact the granting of the application would have on a Grade II listed building, the negative impact the granting of application would have on the conservation area, and the loss of retail space.