CPj2W7/0737 / COt.)

Transcription

CPj2W7/0737 / COt.)

2j NUV
Ub/
I AND
HOUSING DIRECTORATE
CPj2W7/0737
Replacement Shopfront and
Change of Use to Amusement
Centre
/
COt.)
12 The Broad Way, Crawley
Supporting Statement
(Incorporating Design and
Access Statement
Mr A C Partridge
BSc Dip UP MRTPI
Client:
Bensons
Date:
November 2007
Ref:
CRAW/201/AP
SOUTHERN PLANNING PRACTICE LTD
Registered Office: Youngs Yard, Churchfields, Twyford, Winchester, S021 INN
Email: [email protected] Websfte: www.southernplanning.co.uk
Registemd in England and Wales No. 3862030
ANDREW C PARTRIDGE BSc Dip UP MRTPI
CHRISTOPHER M CORCORAN MA Dip TP MRTPI
Tel: 01962 715770
Directors:
Fax: 01962 715880
12 The Broadway, Crawley
Contents:
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
I
2.0
SITE ÔONTEXT
2
3.0
BACKGROUND OF APPLICANT
4
4.0
THE PROPOSAL
4
5.0
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT
4
6.0
POLICY
5
7.0
DESIGN AND ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS
8
8.0
EVALUATION
9
9.0
CONCLUSION
12
0
12
The Broadway, Crawley
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Southern Planning Practice Ltd is instructed by Piazza Leisure Ltd, trading as Bensons
Amusement Centre, to submit an application for the:-
1
.2
•
change of use of the ground floor from Al to an Amusement Centre (Sui Generis)
•
change of use of first floor and second floor to offices A2/B1
•
replacement shopfront at 12 The Broadway, Crawley.
This Statement incorporates all the required elements of a Design and Access Statement
in accordance with Circular 01/2006 and the General Development Procedure Order
(GDPO) Article 4c.
Both the GDPO and the Circular allow the local planning authority
(LPA) to require submission of further details if it is considered necessary.
1.3
1.4
1.5
The matters to be considered in this Statement are:-
•
Amount
•
Layout
•
Scale
•
Appearance
•
Landscaping
•
Access
•
Principle
The proposed development is shown on the following plans:
•
Proposed Floor Plans and Front Elevation Drawing No 2128-2
•
Site Plan 001
•
Block Plan 003
This statement will begin by examining the context of the site, social and economic
considerations, and policy before explaining the design process and then justifying the
proposal.
0'
2.0
SITE CONTEXT
2.1
The
The Broadway lies on the west side of the town centre on a northlsouth axis linking
Boulevard with the A2219.
2.2
of
The buildings on The Broadway are of post war design, which is reflected in the style
metal
shopfronts and, although there is a variety, these are mostly made of anodised
Most of the units on The Broadway are of a retail nature, although these are
occasionally interspersed with other non-retail uses. Several of the units lie vacant,
frames.
including the site.
S
2
2.3
No.12 lies in the north west quadrant of the
Broadway on its west side (See inset plan1).
It
was fomierly Clarkes Stationers, which has since
relocated next door, to the north. On the south
side is a large department store, known as TJ
Hughes.
2.4
To the rear there is access to a service yard for
deliveries, which is accessed off Bank Lane. The
shopfront comprises anodised metal mullioned
windows and glass, with
entrance
doors are
a
low stall riser. Double
positioned
asymmetrically
within the window frame.
2.5
The Broadway is well served by buses, with several bus stops in the near vicinity. The site
lies just south of the boundary of the Town Centre North designation for a major retail-led
mixed use scheme on 14 ha, which runs north of The Boulevard.
1
Image produced from the Ordnance Survey Get-a-map service. Image reproduced with kind permission of Ordnance Survey and
Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.
3
3.0
3.1
4.0
4.1
BACKGROUND OF APPLICANT
in the
The Company is a family run operation, operating a number of amusement centres
south-east and along the south coast and holding several gambling licences.
THE PROPOSAL
The proposal would involve replacing the existing unattractive shopfront with a traditional
wood and glass design and changing the use of the ground floor from Al retail to an
amusement centre, consisting of amusements with prizes machines. The first and second
floor would be put to an A2IB1 office use and would have a separate entrance.
4.2
L
The amusement centre would be operated within the terms of BACTA code of practice,
BACTA being the trade association for the amusement machine industry in Britain.
However, the applicant would apply a more stringent age policy to customers, requiring
L
them to be 21 years or over, with 2 forms of ID required where appropriate, whereas a
standard licence allows persons over 18 years of age. A copy of the house rules is
L
enclosed, which managers and staff are contractually obliged to enforce (Appendix 1). The
premises will be fully equipped with CCTV, which based on the applicant's experience
elsewhere, are a very effective means of policing the operation.
4.3
The applicant would like to operate the centre between the hours of 9am to 10pm Mondays
to Saturdays, and between lOam-Bpm on Sunday and recognised holidays.
5.0
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT
5.1
The proposal for the amusement centre would provide employment for 3 full-time, including
a manager, and
1
pad time employee. The office use would also provide employment
although numbers of staff are not known at this stage. The proposal would also increase
the range of uses within the town centre and broaden leisure uses. It would also improve
the competitiveness of existing amusement centres by introducing another operator within
the town. In addition, the amusement centre element of the proposal would contribute to
the evening economy, which is encouraged by policy.
0
4
6.0
POLICY
6.1
The Development Plan comprises:
•
The Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG9) 2001
•
The West Sussex County Structure Plan 2004
•
The Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000
6.2
Aside from the Development Plan, PPSI and PPS6 are material considerations.
6.3
PPSI and PPS6 encourage high quality design.
6.4
PPS6
advises that
in
considering planning applications
for development before
development plans can be reviewed local planning authorities should have regard to
policies in this statement as material considerations which may supersede the relevant
policies in their plans (Para 3.2).
L
6.5
One of the Government's key objectives outlined in PPS6 is to sustain and enhance the
vitality and viability of town centres by encouraging a wide range of uses (Para 1.3).
Another key objective is to enhance consumer choice by making provision for a wide range
of shopping, leisure and local services to allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the
entire community.
A further key objective is to support and promote efficient and
competitive leisure and other sectors (Para 1.4).
6.6
PPS6 accept that it may be appropriate to define primary and secondary shopping
frontages and the former should contain
a
higher proportion of retail but there should be
opportunities, although fewer, than in a secondary frontage for diversity of other uses. Such
frontages should be realistically defined (Para 2.17).
6.7
It also encourages office developments above ground floor retail, leisure and other uses
(Para.2.21).
6.8
It states that a diversity of uses in centres makes an important contribution to their vitality
and viability. Different but complimentary uses during the day and in the evening can
0
5
12 The Broadway! Crawley
reinforce each other, making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers, and
visitors. Local Planning Authorities should encourage diversity of uses in the town centre
as a whole. (Paragraph 2.22)
6.9
Planning polices should encourage a range of complementary evening and night time
economy uses which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups (adults only),
ensuring that provision is made where appropriate for
a
range of leisure, cultural and
tourism activities. (Paragraph 2.23)
6.10
The criteria for considering planning applications are set out in PPS6. Within the town
centre, attention needs to be paid to scale and impact on town centres (including effect on
viability and vitality and the evening economy) and accessibility (Para 3.1 et al).
6.11
Unlike PPG6, PPS6 no longer directs amusement centres to secondary shopping
frontages.
6.12
The RPG9 and the draft RSP contain no relevant policies and/or which are not otherwise
covered in the Structure Plan and the Local Plan.
6.13
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has under Paragraph
of Schedule
8
1
(3)
of the Planning and Compulsory 2004 directed that the following policy
relevant to this application are saved, NES and NE1 2 of the West Sussex County Structure
2004. Policy NE.5 aims to ensure that there is a wide range of sizes and types of sites and
premises provided for business uses. Policy NE12 encourages new or improved leisure,
cultural or tourism facilities within the built up area.
6.14
Similarly, GD1, GD27, 5H19 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan have also been saved.
Policy GDI encourages good design and seeks to avoid harm to the amenities and the
environment of its surroundings.
shopfronts.
Policy GD27 encourages a high standard of design of
Policy 81-119 allows amusements centres to be pemiitted but outside the core
or primary shopping areas provided that they are not in close proximity to residential
properties or other sensitive community uses and do not have an adverse impact on
amenity. It should be noted that this policy is based on the advice of PPG6 which has
Q
6
L
The policy promoting the use of first floors for offices and other
since been superseded.
uses has not been saved.
6.15
is
The Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework has been approved and
therefore material to the consideration of the proposal. It adopts a positive and proactive
spatial vision and strategy for the Town Centre and seeks to ensure that the vitality and
viability of the Town Centre is enhanced. It identifies a number of objectives including a
thriving Town Centre with a rich mix of uses to enhance the town centre during the day and
the
in the evening. It acknowledges that a variety of leisure use in the town centre adds to
vitality and viability and supports town centre residents, and that mixed uses makes the
most efficient use of scarce land in the town centre. It states that it is important to protect
the core shopping area from becoming dominated by non shopping uses but recognises
that non retail uses can play a part in enhancing the vitality of the town centre, particularly
the evening economy.
The specific uses will be addressed in the Town Centre Wide
Strategy.
6.16
A scoping report has been prepared for the Town Centre Wide Strategy which is yet to be
published. However, the draft Town Centre Strategy has been published updating Centre
Vision 2000 strategy. As it is draft it carries little weight. It encourages offices above shops
and encourages improvements to the appearance of the town centre amongst other things.
Supplementary Planning Documents
6.17
The Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 7 Shopfronts sets out guidance on shopfronts
to encourage good design. Whilst a material consideration it carries little weight as the
community has not scrutinised the document, but it nevertheless provides a benchmark to
consider the proposal by.
0
7
7.0
DESIGN AND ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS
7.1
The plans for the ground floor show an area of 156 sq m set aside for amusement
machines; the remainder of the ground floor area (99 sq m) would be allocated for staff
facilities. The machines are shown located at the front of the unit against each flank wall
while at the rear are staff facilities. These comprise kitchen, locker room and an office with
the first two rooms separated from the cloak and store rooms by central corridor which
itself terminates at the entrance to another store and beyond a delivery bay which both
adjoin the office. The first and second floor (123 sqm) would be set aside for the office.
7.2
The new shopfront would be 4.3m wide and 3.lm high. It would have a window display
area of 1.6sq m. divided between recessed entrance doors, each measuring O.7m x 2.lm.
The frame and doors would be made of wood, stained dark. The stall risers would be O.8m
high and would be panelled, together with the doors.
L
With the exception of the oblong
window, the other windows would all have an arched glazing bar, the apex of which
brushes the heads of the windows. A new plain wooden door for the upstairs would be
provided in a timber surround.
7.3
No landscaping is necessary or proposed given the site's location.
7.4
The shop entrance to the amusement centre would provide access by customers and staff,
while the rear would be used by staff for the occasional deliveries of machines.
There is
sufficient space at rear for the parking and delivery of vehicles. The layout would allow for
level entry access into the ground floor unit and wide circulations spaces for those persons
with impaired mobility. A separate entrance from The Broadway would be provided to
access the first and second floors. The proposal would comply with Part M of the Building
Regulations, governing disability requirements.
7.5
Being in the town centre, the site is easily accessible by means of transport other than the
car.
0
8
8.0
EVALUATION
8.1
Section 36(6) requires development to be approved in accordance with the development
The Planning System: General
plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Principles states that where there are other material considerations, the Development Plan
&
should be the starting point and other material considerations should be taken into account.
Thus, even where a development is not in accordance with the plan it may be permissible if
there are overriding material considerations.
Notwithstanding this, Circular 05/00 makes
clear that even if the development were, on the face of
it,
contrary to policy,
it
has to be
shown why the policy objectives would be materially harmed by the proposal.
8.2
The question that arises is how do the three elements of the proposal fit within policy and if
they do not will any harm arise?
8.3
Tuming first to the physical operations i.e. the replacement shopfront, the existing one
makes little contribution to the street scene. The current proposal is a traditional style of
design. Made in wood, with a recessed entrance, part glazed doors and a well proportioned
fascia, the shopfront will significantly improve the character of the building and enhance the
street scene.
It
will accord with PPSI, PPS6, Policy GDI, Policy GD27 of the Crawley
Borough Local Plan and the Local Planning Authoritys supplementary Planning Guidance
Note 7.
8.4
As to the change of use, the local plan policy relating to the use of the first floor for offices
is no longer in force.
However, PPS6 promotes the use of offices above the ground floor
(See Paragraph 6.7 above). In addition Policy NE.5 also encourages a diversity of
employment opportunities in town centres, while the draft Town Centre Strategy also
encourages offices above shops. The Core Strategy also encourages
a
rich mix of uses.
On this basis, this element of the proposal would comply with policy.
8.5
This then leaves the change of use of the ground floor to an amusement centre, which is
more problematical.
While it is recognised that the proposal would not comply with the
saved Policy SH19 it is appropriate to mention that the policy was written prior to PPS6 and
clearly relied on the old advice of PPG6, which directed amusement centres to secondary
shopping frontages. However, no such advice is given in PPS6.
0
In fact, PPS6
quite clearly
9
12 The Broadway,
Crawley
specifies that Local Planning Authorities should encourage diversity of uses including
leisure in the town centre as a whole, and not in part of
it.
Therefore in excluding
amusement centres away from the core primary shopping areas this cannot be achieved.
Furthermore, with the addition of the retail development to the north of the Boulevard the
centre of gravity of the primary shopping area will indeed shift and therefore in this context
the Primary and Secondary Shopping areas have not been realistically assessed. The
policy therefore is out of kilter with PPS6 and as such in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of
this statement, PPS6 carries more weight.
8.6
PPS6 advises that in considering changes of use for leisure proposals, regard must be had
to the effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the town centre.
objectives of the Core Strategy are to promote
a
In addition the
variety of leisure uses, including those
that promote the evening economy, and to enhance the vitality and viability of the town
centre. In this case, the proposal would introduce
a
leisure use (including an evening use)
and would enhance the town centre.
8.7
It should be noted that the proposal is aimed to offer casual amusement to adult shoppers
and adult passers-by. It is therefore dependant upon a busy shopping location. It is distinct
from amusement arcades, which are deliberately noisy and garish in order to be attractive
to the young.
8.8
The change of use to an amusement centre would not by itself create a significant break of
non
Al uses
in the frontage, given the small size of
frontage. Nor would it create a
significant break in the small parade of units in which it is located as its immediate
neighbours are retail outlets. In any event, the change to the frontage would not be
noticeable since it is intended to provide an attractive and lively window display, which will
engender
interest to shoppers in order to draw custom and maintain the retail
characteristics of The Broadway.
of non
8.9
Al uses as it would
Therefore, in effect, there would be no perceived break
be similar to retail in appearance.
The use is unlikely to undermine the retail function of the Town Centre as the presence of
T J Hughes and Peacocks, together with the shops in Queens Square are a significant
draw of visitors to the town centre.
substantial proportion of trade
0
is
Moreover, it is recorded in various appeals that a
from shoppers of all ages who combine their visit with
10
a
12 The Broadway! Crawley
trip to an amusement centre, although they also attract a significant number of customers
in their own right.
It is also recorded that these types of centres are appreciably busier
than most banks and building societies and are as busy as many shops. (See Appendix 2)
Indeed, on appeal, the current amusement centres were found to be acceptable in the
primary shopping frontage namely at 30/31 Queens Square CR/2001/0169/COU and at 42
The Broadway CR42191 for similar reasons. The establishment of
a
third such centre,
complementary to and not harming the retail vitality of Crawley, would merely add an
element of healthy competition and is equally acceptable.
8.10
Given that this type of use is likely to attract customers, retaining the footfall necessary to a
lively shopping area, it is considered that there is no reason why the proposal should be
unacceptable. Indeed, the proposal would add to the mix and diversity of uses, and would
provide an additional attraction for shoppers.
economy. As such,
8.11
it
It would also contribute to the evening
would augment the vitality and viability of the area.
In addition there is no shortage of this type of retail space in the town centre and the
Council's aspirations for developing
north of the Town Centre, if realised would
considerably expand the amount and choice of space.
8.12
The adaptation of the premises and the fitting out will bring investment adding to the
viability of the centre.
8.13
The amusement centre will not contain noisy games, but, in any event, modern noise
attenuation measures can adequately deal with any concerns about internally generated
noise.
8.14
Restrictions on hours of opening, age of entry, the Company's own in house rules, together
with licensing controls and the operation of the BACTA code of practice will avoid any
disturbance to local residents.
11
9.0
9.1
CONCLUSION
considered that the absence of harm to the town centre and the positive contribution
which would be made to the diversity and vitality of this part of the town centre, the
It is
proposal would not undermine the aims and objectives of the Local Plan, Core Strategy or
Structure Plan and would be consistent with the advice in PPS6. In conclusion, the
proposal would have a beneficial impact on the vitality of Crawley Town Centre.
In particular, it would:-
•
Contribute towards maintaining a variety and range of leisure facilities in the town
centre
Q
•
Compliment existing facilities
•
Enhance the attractiveness of the centre for shoppers
•
Add to competition
•
Contribute to the evening economy.
12
—
r
r
a
r-
r
iv
p
i
U
v
S
i
Cl)
rn
C
z
m
-D
-D
r
v
r=
r
u
rr
&
I
I
Welcome to Bensons Amusement Centres
Page
1
of 2
ii
ii
'I
BE
AMUSEMENT CENTRE
Home
I
About Us
I
Gallery
I
Contact Us
Shop Build
I
Rules & Promotions
I
Rules & Promotions
HOUSE RULES
Strictly no loitering or waiting.
ii
Anyone found damaging or
defrauding machines will be
prosecuted.
No gathering around machines.
No food or drink to be brought onto
the premises.
Abusive behaviour or language will
not be tolerated.
ii
I
Please call an attendant to verify any
win over £10.00.
The management will not be held
responsible if a win is not checked.
It
is a criminal offence for anyone
under 18 years of age to enter.
Photographic ID required.
The use of mobile phones is
prohibited on the premises.
Caps, Hoods, Helmets etc. Not to
worn on the premises.
These are examples of typical promotions found at Bensons Amusement
http://www.bensonsamusements.co.uk/rules.htm
21/11/2007
me Planning Inspectorate
An Executive Agency in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office
Room 1404
Tollgate Hoise
Houlton Street
Bristol S82 9DJ
Roger Etchells and Company
93 Allison Street
Digbeth
BIRMINGHAM
B5 5TH
YU
Direct Line
Switchboard
FwcNo
0317-9878927
GTh?
1374
011 7-987 8000
0117-9878759
Ret
RGE/JF/06
Our Ret
T/APP/H43 ISIA/96/263 148/fl
One:
9g
FICT
jqq
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, SECTION 78 AND SCHEDULE 6
APPEAL BY WHITE GROUP LEISURE LIMITED
APPLICATION NO: P195/lOll
1.
I have been appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine this
appeal against the decision of the St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse planning
permission in respect of an application for change of use from building society (A2) to
amusement centre at 4 Ormskirk Sireet, St Helens. I held a local inquiry into the appeal on
25 September 1996. At the inquiry, an application was made by White Group Leisure
Limited for an award of costs against St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. This is the
subject of a separate letter.
From the evidence given at the inquiry, my reading of the written representations and
inspection of the site and its surroundings, I consider the main issue in this appeal to be
whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the vitality and viability of the prime
shopping area of St Helens.
2.
The development plan for the area consists of the Merseyside Structure Plan, 1980 and
the St Helens Town Centre Local Plan, adopted in 1984 (TCLP). It is agreed that there are
no relevant policies contained in the structure plan, but the TCLP contains policy 5.2 which
resists the establishment of non-relail uses in certain main shopping streets, including the
relevant part of Ormskirk Street. The reasoned justification to the policy refers to the
objective of preventing further changes to non-retail use in Ormskirk Street.
3.
My attention has also been drawn to policies TC2(a) and RET3 of the deposit draft
St Helens Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which has completed its local inquiry stage.
Proposed modifications to the above policies have been approved by the Council to be placed
on deposit. Policy TC2(a), as modified, defmes a prime shopping area which includes the
appeal site, and states that the Council will not allow non-retail uses at ground floor level
which are considered to he inappropriate to prime shopping streets. Amusement arcades and
betting offices are given as examples of inappropriate uses in the reasoned justification.
Policy RET3 indicates that amusement centres are generally acceptable in secondary shopping
areas but not in defined prime shopping areas. The reasoned justification refers to potential
problems of noise and the interruption of retail frontages. The UDP is still in draft form and
I will accord its policies the degree of weight indicated by paragraph 32 of Planning Policy
Guidance 1 - General Policy and Principles. Referenceisa1somadjphec4ses to the
4.
L
p
advice concerning amusement centres in Annex D of Planning Policy Guidance 6- Town
Centres and Retail Developments.
1 saw that the appeal premises consist of a vacant, single fronted former building
5.
society office. There is a retail unit on either side and, further to the east, a large building
society office and a smaller vacant A2 unit. Beyond those is the pedestrianised area of
Church Street which, with its department stores and its high representation of national
multiple shops, clearly acts as the focus of retail activity in the town. The centre appears to
be buoyant in retail terms with busy pedestrian flows and few vacant units in Church Street.
The Council considers that a proportion of non-retail units of up to 25% is acceptable
6.
in the prime shopping area, and has modified the reasoned justification to policy TC2(a) to
this effect. At the inquiry you challenged the Council's calculation that existing non-retail
uses are already at that level. The Council accepted that as a result of a change in the
designated prime area, the percentage of non-retail units is now less than 25%, although they
were unable at the inquiry to agree your figure of 16.6%. Since it is agreed that less than
25% of units are in non-retail use, and since the proposal would not result in the loss of a
retail unit, I do not regard the lack of agreement on the precise figure as being significant for
the purposes of this appeal.
7.
You say that, apart from your client's interest, the marketing of the property only
revealed interest from other possible A2 users. In the light of this I intend, in considering
the main issue, to concentrate on comparing the effect of the proposal with that of the range
of A2 uses which could occupy the premises without planning permission. Because the
scheme does not involve the change of use of a shop, it differs from the case referred to by
the parties at 27 Church Street where a proposal to convert a butcher's shop to an amusement
centre was dismissed on appeal in 1990. For that reason I regard the decision in that case
as being of limited relevance.
The proposed centre would have only aniusement with prizes machines, and the
customer profiles obtained from similar centres show that the majority of customers are
middle aged lady shoppers. I visited the appellant's premises at Westfield Street, St Helens
after the close of the inquiry and my own observations bear out this finding. There would
be no sessional games, no noisy video games and no under eighteen year olds allowed on the
premises.
The customer inflow counts carried out in many towns show this type of
amusement centre to be as busy as many shops, and appreciably busier than most banks and
building society offices. Such centres appear to provide a service mainly to shoppers but they
also attract a proportion of customers in their own right.
g•
Policy 5.2 of the TCLP effectively resists the establishment of further non-retail uses
9.
in Orxnskirk Street. Because in this case the non-retail use is already established at the appeal
premises, I do not consider that the proposal conflicts with the requirements of the
development plan. The Council now considers that amusement centres should be steered
away from prime shopping streets into secondary locations. Their draft UDP policies are
clearly expressed to achieve this aim and they are broadly consistent with the advice in PPG6
that amusement centres are unlikely to be acceptable in primary shopping areas. However,
the UDP policies as modified contain less flexibility than the advice in PP06.
6
1
L
t
of it, the proposal does not comply with the draft UDP policies, but in
my view the Council has not clearly established the harm which an amusement centre of this
io.
On the face
-2-
type would cause to the prime shopping area. The UDP makes reference to potential noise
problems and interruption of Eetail frontages and suggests that amusement centres do not need
main street locations.
The Council referred to the important link function of Ormskirk Street, but it was
accepted at the inquiry that the proposal would not adversely affect pedestrian flows. Your
evidence suggests that compared to most likely A2 uses in the premises, the proposal would
lead to increased customer activity in the area. In this respect I do not consider that the use
would be damaging to the predominantly retail activity of the prime shopping area.
11.
12:
Noise is highlighted as a potential problem both in the text accompanying policy RET3
and in Annex D of PPG-6, although the latter acknowledges that it depends paitly onthe kind
of amusement centre proposed. I can well imagine this could be a problem with arcade type
amusement centres incorporating video games. However, I did not find the noise level inside
your client's premises in Westfield Street to be particularly loud and, whilst the doors were
closed, it was inaudible above the background noise on the pavement outside.
It is intended to maintain a display of priced ornaments in a refurbished shopfront, and
the revised illustrative plan submitted at the inquiry shows the existing and proposed frontage
to the unit (which you accept would require planning permissioli in its own right). In my
view a proposal along these lines would be more shop-like than the a building society office.
I can appreciate the Council's concern that the type of window display proposed would be
somewhat superficial in that its connection to the activity inside is rather tenuous but, in
visual terms, I do not consider that it would be out of place in a shopping area.
13.
The Council's reasons for refusal include concern about precedent, although it was
accepted that the proposal sets no precedent for the change of use of existing retail units. It
was also accepted that betting offices, the other example of an inappropriate use in the prime
area given by the Council, would not need planning permission to occupy existing A2 units.
I must consider this proposal on its own merits, but it does not appear to me that the proposal
would set a precedent which would undermine the Council's efforts in protecting the retail
function of the area.
14.
I conclude on the main issue that, notwithstanding the apparent conflict with draft
UDP policies TC2(a) and RET3, neither the use nor the appearance of the proposal would
cause demonstrable hann to the vitality and viability of the prime shopping area.
15.
16.
Turning to other matters raised, the written representations submitted to the Council
included fears about drug problems and congregating youths associated with amusement
arcades. No evidence was given which suggests that the type of centre proposed, or the
appellant's premises in Westfield Street would lead to problems of this kind. The St Helens
Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise confirmed that the premises in Westfield
Street seem to be totally innocuous. I have taken into account all other matters raised in
evidence at the inquiry and in the written representations, but none is sufficient to override
the considerations which have led me to my conclusions.
L
17.
1 therefore propose to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to
conditions. A number of conditions were agreed between the parties at the inquiry, and I
agree that it is necessary for amenity reasons to limit the use to amusement with prizes
machines and non-sessional gaines. I agree also that a shop window display is necessary in
-3-
L
this location as are the suggested measures to minimise noise disturbance, including limiting
amusement machines to the ground floor. The Council suggested limiting hours of opening
to 1000 hours to 2200 hours on any thy, but you consider there is no need for an hours
restriction in the town centre. There are no residential properties in the vicinity, and I
consider that any hours [imitation is more appropriately dealt with by the Council under its
Gaming Act powers.
18.
For the above reasons and in exercise of powers transferred to me, I hereby allow this
appeal and grant planning permission for change of use from building society (A2) to
amusement centre at 4 Ormskirk Street, St Helens in accordance with the terms of the
application (No P195/1011) dated 7 November 1995 and the plans submitted therewith,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5
years from the date of this letter;
2.
the use of the premises shall be limited to the playing of amusement with
prizes machines;
3.
no games of a sessional nature shall be played on the premises;
4.
a shop window display shall be provided and retained whilst the use hereby
permitted is in operation;
5.
the use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the premises have been
soundproofed in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall include self
closing doors;
6.
no amusement with prizes machines shall be installed at first floor level.
19.
An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this
permission has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or
approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the authority fail to give notice of their
decision within the prescribed period.
20.
The developer's attention is drawn to the enclosed note relating to the requirements
of the Building Regulations 1991 with respect to access for disabled people.
21.
This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than Section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
Yours faithfully
IF B WHITEHOUSE BA(klons) MCD MRTPI
Inspector
C
-4-
i tie ?Ianning Inspectorate
An Executive Agency in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office
Room 1404
•
Toilgatsilouse
Houkon Street
Bristol 352 9D1
Direct Line
Switchboard
Fax No
(YIN
0117487—8927
0117-987-8000
0117-987-8769
1374-8927
oH
Biesterfield
IA Dukesway Court
GATESHEAD
DHBIJL 265
T/APP/T1 41 0/A195/ 254396!P7
NEflOPJ
oat:4
liii 1996
Dear Sir
APPEAL BY SOUTHERN AMUSEMENTS
APPLICATION NO: EB/95/0178
I.
appeal against the decision of the Easthourne Borough Council to refuse planning permission
in respect of an application for change of use from retail to amusement centre with ancillary
retail sales and rear single storey extension at 39 Terminus Road, Eastbourne. I held a local
inquiry into the appeal on 5 March 1996. At the inquiry you made an application for an
award of costs against the Easthoume Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate
letter.
1 shall determine this appeal on the basis that the proposed change of use relates only
the ground floor of the premises, including the proposed rear extension, as shown on
Drawing No.95/027/02. There are two floors of ancillary accommodation over. The Council
confirmed to me at the inquiry that there is no objection to the proposed rear extension.
2.
to
From the representations made at the inquiry and in writing and my inspection of the
3.
site and its surroundings and your company's premises at 126-127 St James's Street,
Brighton, I consider the main issues in this appeal to be first, whether the proposed change
of use would conflict with the Council's policy in respect of non-retail uses in the primary
shopping area of the town centre and second, whether the proposed use would be
complementary to the existing retail character of the area.
My attention has not been drawn to the development plan for the area. The Council
rely on policies in the Deposit Draft of the Eastbourne Borough Plan, on which the
Inspector's report was issued in October 1995 following a public inquiry earlier that year.
The plan is close to formal adoption and I accord it due weight.
4.
5.
Relevant policies in the Deposit Draft reflect Easthourne's status as a sub-regional
centre and the domipance of the town centre in the shopping hierarchy within the town,
focussed on the Aradale Centi'e and the pedestrianised section of Terminus Road. The appeal
premises, last used as a telei'ision rental showroom and currently vacant, front the western
CAr COP1ED
BY
UNDER LICENCE FROM HMSO
452-31 0566
Tat:
Cu
section of Terminus Road between the Arndale Centre and the station, and fall within the
primary shopping area as defined on the proposals map.
Policy SF16 of the Deposit Draft states that within the primary area of the town centre,
6.
the change of use of ground floor premises for non-retail use will not he permitted. Apart
from the deletion of the word "normally", which the local plan Inspector regarded as
redundant, this policy remained unchanged from the earlier draft. The Inspector also
recommended that the primary shopping area should be reduced to what he considered to be
a more defensible size, enabling a strong argument to be made that allowing any further Class
A2 and A3 uses would reduce its primary shopping character. The operators of such uses
would need to secure premises already having planning permission.
Planning permission was granted by the Council for a change of use of the appeal
premises from retail (Class Al) to financial services (Class A2) in April 1994. At that time,
the earlier draft of the Borough Plan drew a distinction within the primary shopping area
between zone SIA, which included the Arndale Centre and the pedestrianised section of
Terminus Road, and zone SIB containing all other areas including the appeal premises. The
change would have taken the proportion of non-retail uses in this section of Terminus Road
to 33%, which the Council did not then regard as a significant conflict with policy.
7.
Notwithstanding the earlier policy context in which change of use of the appeal
premises to Class A2 was permitted, I regard the extant permission as a material
consideration in this case. The fact that this permission has not been implemented is not
unusual during a recession and I have no reason to doubt that, if this appeal were to be
dismissed, there is a strong likelihood that the permission for an A2 use would be
implemented at some stage.
8.
The Council's assertion that this is not a sustainable fall-back position is not, in my
view, supported by the very different circumstances of their case reference (Document II),
nor is it consistent with the terms of their Section 106 Agreement with Abbey National,
confirmed at the inquiry, which require a reversion to an Al use on cessation of that
company's A2 use in nearby premises.
9.
S
S
•
L
10.
It was conceded by the Council that, including the existing A2 permission for the
appeal premises, the non-retail content in this part of Terminus Road is within the 35% that
they consider acceptable and that this balance would improve as a result of the Section 106
Agreement with Abbey National. As I consider that the extant A2 permission is the likely
alternative to the proposed amusement centre, I conclude that the appeal proposal would have
no effect on the balance of retail and non-retail use in this part of Terminus Road and would
not, therefore, be in conflict with Policy SF16 of the Deposit Draft of the Borough Plan.
11.
Turning to the second issue, you stated that the type of amusement centre operated by
your company is more complementary to a shopping frontage in function and appearance than
A2 or A3 uses. You referred to the regular acceptance of them in shopping areas elsewhere
and drew my attention to a number of favourable appeal decisions. I shall, however, deal
with this proposal on its own merits.
Government advice cm amusement centres is set out in Planning Pof icy Guidance Note
(PPG6),
which states at Annex C that they are most appropriately sited in secondary
No.6
shopping areas and that they are unlikely to he acceptable in primary shopping areas.
12.
-2-
Different considerations may arise in resort towns, where the seafront or pier may he
preferred locations, and development plans should give guidance in such cases. The Council
argued that, while they have no specific policies relating to amusement centres, they are not
opposed to them in principle, having recently granted permission for one at 39 Seaside Road.
Their objection in this case is to the location in the primary shopping area.
13.
Paragraph 9 of PPGt recognises that amusement centres in shopping areas cause
concern to local planning authorities, hut also that the term covers a range of activities
including amusement-with-prizes machines and amusement-only machines. The main
planning considerations set out in PPG6 relating to amusement centres in town centres which
are of relevance to this appeal are: the type of centre proposed; the impact on the
neighbourhood, particularly in respect of noise and disturbance; pedestrian movements;
location; and appearance.
14.
You described the nature of your company's operation as non-sessional, shopperorientated and largely reliant on passing trade. The premises would have amusement-withprizes machines and prize bingo, aiming to attraót customers over the age of 18. You
stressed the clear distinction between the characteristics of this type of enclosed centre and
those of amusement arcades which are noisy and aimed at the young. It was conceded by the
Council that they had wrongly described your proposal as an amusement arcade and as a
Class D2 use.
15.
The customer profile surveys at other centres operated by your company (Document
4 at RE7) show that the majority of customers are women aged over thirty and that shopping
was the main reason for the majority of trips. A significant proportion, however, had come
mainly for amusements and 1 do not share the Council's concern that a recreational use is
inappropriate in this location.. It is clear to me that this type of amusement centre is not only
dependant upon a busy shopping location hut is capable of attracting additional custom,
thereby contributing to the variety and overall economic viability of the shopping centre.
Objections to your proposal by local traders, which appeared to be based on their
16.
experience of amusement arcades, centred on noise and the anticipated problems arising from
the potential attraction to grcups of young people. The proximity of the proposed centre to
McDonald's was regarded as a particular problem. You drew my attention to your
company's door policy and to evidence submitted in respect of their operating experience in
centres of this type elsewhere, notably letters from the police and surveys of nearby traders
(Document 4 at REID and RE19 respectively). This evidence was not challenged by the
Council and I consider that the concerns expressed are misplaced and the objections
unsubstantiated. I am also satisfied that the limited noise generated by the proposed use can
he adequately dealt with by sound insulation.
The western end of Terminus Road forms part of the main shopping street in
Easthourne. Being located between the central pedestrianised section and the station, and
accommodating a number of bus stops, there arc good pedestrian flows in the vicinity of the
appeal premises. It became clear at the inquiry, however, that local traders regard the
presence of the buses and the bus stops as a disadvantage. This view is also expressed in the
letter from Donaldsons (Doament 4 at RE3), and it seems to rite that, despite its inclusion
within the defined primary shopping area, this part of Terminus Road has some of the
characteristics of a secondary location, in these circumstances, it is relevart that customer
usage of this type of amusem ent centre is shown by your customer inflow surveys elsewhere
17.
-3-
t
to be as good as, or better than, other businesses nearby. I consider that the proposed
development would introduce a use which would benefit from, and contribute to, pedestrian
flows in this location.
The Council were concerned at the limited extent of retail sales ancillary to the
8.
primary use of the proposed amusement centre and I saw no counter, or other arrangements
for the sale of displayed goods, at the St James's Street premises in Brighton. You confirmed
to me at the inquiry that the actual level of retail sales in the company's amusement centres
is insignificant and that the primary purpose of the shopfront display is to attract customers
to the premises. You stated that window displays of china and glassware, for sale and
offered as prizes, have a price range of £5 - £100 and are changed at intervals of 4-6 weeks.
1
You submitted a separate application (Ref. EB/95/0l 80) for a new shopfront at the
appeal premises. This was approved by the Council on 26 May 1995 and you have provided
me with a copy of Drawing No.95/027103 (Plan C) showing details of the proposal. I
understand that a further application (Ref.EB/9510179(ADV)) for the display of an
illuminated fascia sign and fanlight sign has yet to be determined by the Council.
.19.
20.
'The Council conceded at the inquiry that the appearance of the new shopfront would
be an irliprovement. You presented evidence from surveys elsewhere that your company's
window displays are perceived by adult passers-by to be at least as attractive as those of
surrounding shops and businesses. Whilst acknowledging some regional variations in the
survey results, lam satisfied that the conclusions drawn from this data support your assertion.
it is also clear to me from the illustrations in your company brochure and from my visit to
your company's premises in Brighton, that, despite their minimal retail element, amusement
centres of this type are capable of maintaining the visual continuity of a shopping frontage.
I consider that the characteristics of the proposed amusement centre in terms of the
type of activity; customer profile and usage; impact on the area; pedestrian flow; location and
appearaiice in the shopping frontage would contribute to the vitality and viability of this part
of Easthourne town centre.
21.
In summary, I conclude that the proposal would he acceptable in policy terms and
22.
would be complementary to the existing retail character of the area and that, accordingly, this
appeal should be allowed. I have taken account of all other matters raised at the inquiry and
in the representations, but I do not find any of these factors to he sufficient to outweigh the
considerations which have ted me to my conclusion.
1 have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and which were discussed
23.
at the inquiry. I shall impose conditions to limit the type of amusement provided by the
centre to those that you have proposed, and to control noise emission and to require sound
insulation. In order to maintain the retail appearance of the premises, I shall also impose
ensure that the approved shopfront is in place before the new use commences
conditicns to
retail
display is maintained.
and that a
24.
Bearing in mind the absence of residential occupiers in the vicinity of the appeal site,
I do not consider that a condition to limit operating hours, as suggested by the Council, is
neccessary in this case. I am also satisfied that problems arising from changes in the
appellants' operating policies, or from the sale of the premises to other operators, could he
adequately dealt with by planning legislation or by licensing requirements. I do not therefore
-4-
I
consider that a personal permission, as suggested by the Council at the inquiry, is appropriate
in this case.
25.
For the above reasons and in exercise of powers transferred to me, Thereby allow this
appeal and grant planning permission for change of use of the ground floor at 39 Terminus
Road, Easthourne from retail to amusement centre with ancillary retail sales and rear single
storey extension, in accordance with the terms of the application (No EB195/0178) dated 7
April 1995 and the plan submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions:
I.
the premises shall he used for the playing of amusement-with-prizes machines,
prize bingo and ancillary retail sales, and for no other purpose;
2.
3.
the premises shall not be used for the playing
of any games of a sessional
character;
4.
the use hereby permitted shall not commence until the premises have been
soundproofed in accordance with a scheme to he submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority;
the use hereby permitted shall not commence until the new shop front approved
under application Ref.EB/95/O1 80 has been installed;
5.
The shop window of the premises shall at all times have a display of retail
6.
goods available for sale within the premises;
No loudspeakers, other than for the relaying of background music, shall be
used within the premises, and none shall be attached to the outside.
7.
26.
27.
28.
This letter does jiot convey any approval or consent which may he required under any
ttactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than Section 57 of the Town and Country
9lanning Act 1990.
Yours faithfully
Peter Dean DipArch DipTP RIRA MRTPT
Inspector
L
S
V
The Planning Inspectorate
An Executive Agency in the Department
L
of the Environment and the
Room 1404
DIrCCILfrW
Tollgate House
SMitchboard
Fax No
Hoidion Street
Bristol BS2 9DJ
GZW
Thir Ret:
93 Allison Street
RGE
Digbeth
BIRMINGHAM
85 5TH
-
Welsh Office
0117-987 8927
0117-987 8000
0117-9878769
1374
Reft
T/APP/F4410/A197/2785 17/P9
D=
j.jOCIi2?L
Dear Sirs
APPEAL BY OAK AMUSEMENTS
APPLICATION NO: 96/63/3495/P/FUL
1.
appeal against the decision of the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse planning
permission for the change of use to an amusement centre at 53 High Street, Mexborough.
I held a local inquiry into the appeal on 30 July 1997. At the inquiry, an application was
made on behalf of Oak Amusements for an award of costs against the Doncaster Metropolitan
Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate letter.
From all that I have seen, read and heard, I have come to the view that the main issue
in this case is the effect that the proposed amusement centre would have on the viability and
vitality of the town centre of Mexborough.
2..
The C welopment Plan for the area includes the Adopted Mexborough-Conisbrough
3.
District Plan. Although the Council initially referred to a number of shopping policies for
Mexborough in the District Plan, it was agreed between the parties at the inquiry that none
of these policies is of any relevance to this appeal. It was also agreed that the District Plan
js not up-to-date. I agree with these views. No reference was made to the Structure Plan.
Annex D of Planning Policy Guidance Note 6, Town Centres and Retail Developments
provides national guidance on amusement centres. It advises that they are unlikely to be
acceptable in primary shopping areas. However, this is general advice relating to a wide
variety of amusement centre uses. It is still necessary to take account of local circumstances
and the specific characteristics of the type of amusement centre proposed and to determine
whether it would cause harm in that location.
4..
5.
The Council is preparing a Unitary Development Plan (UI)?) for the Borough. This
lias reached an advanced stage, having been the subject of a public inquiry. The Inspector's
recommendations were published in January of this year. The main UDP policies of
relevance to this appeal are policies SSH1 and SH5. Policy SSH1 is a general policy which
aims to secure and enhance the vitality and viability of small town and district shopping
centres. The relevant part of the policy goes on to say that proposals for appropriate leisure
uses will be supported in identified shopping policy areas (referred to as commercial policy
areas on the Proposals Map). Policy SH5 relates to Primary Shopping Frontages (PSF). The
appeal premises are within the commercial pclicy area for Mexbowughan±alsi.-the---.
High Street PSF.
.
LiC
7-
There have been three different versions of policy SH5. The original Deposit Draft
UDP version precluded changes of use away from retailing at ground floor level of properties
within the PSF. Objections were received, primarily on the grounds that the policy was
inflexible. A somewhat less restrictive policy was agreed by the Council sometime between
March and October 1995 and this was put forward to the UDP inquiry, together with
additional supporting text, as a suggested change. This was the current version of the policy
when the Council considered the application which led to this appeal.
6.
7.
Subsequent to the publication of the UDP Inspector's report, the Council approved a
further modification to policy 5115 in line with the Inspector's recommendations. This is the
up-to-date version of the policy. Although the statutory procedures leading to adoption of
the UDP have yet to be completed, it was accepted by the Council's witness that the current
version of policy SH5 is unlikely to be changed further.
The information put before me by the Council regarding policy SF15, both in the
evidence of its professional witness and in enclosures attached to the appeal questionnaire,
was somewhat unhelpful in that only partial extracts of both the current and superseded
versions of the policy were referred to. In the interests of clarity, I am therefore reciting in
full the current version of policy SH5, together with the additional supporting text which
indicates how it is to be applied:8.
WITHIN THE PRIMARY SHOPPING FRONTAGES OF SMALL TOWN AND
DISTRICT CENTRES, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, THE
PREDOMINANT RETAIL FUNCTION WILL BE PROTECTED. CHANGES OF
USE OF GROUND FLOOR SHOPS FROM CLASS Al TO CLASS A2 AND A3
USE MAY BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE
VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF THE CENTRE AND DO NOT SERIOUSLY
INTERRUPT THE CONTINUITY OF THE SHOPPING FRONTAGE.
Where a non-retail use is considered, the development must demonstrate that:
the resultant non-retail use would not be likely to undermine the retail
function of the shopping frontage it is located in AND
a)
the proposal would not create a concentration of non-retail uses which would
detract from the vitality and or viability of the shopping frontage AND
b)
the proposal would create a form of development with an interesting and
attractive shop frontage, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.
c)
weight to this policy in accordance with the advice contained at paragraph 48
of Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, General Policy and Principles.
I have given
Although the policy refers only to changes of use within classes A2 and A3, the part
of the UDP Inspector' s report which sets out the reasoning behind this recommended policy
refers more generally to complementary non-retail uses. In my view, the objectives of the
policy would not be undermined if other complementary uses which meet the criteria set out
in the supporting text were to be permitted.
9.
10.
The appeal proposal relates only to the change of use of the premises. I was told that
your clients also intend to refurbish the premises comprehensively. These refurbishments
would include improvements to the appearance of the property at both ground floor and first
floor levels, including the fitting of a new shop front. The proposals would be consistent
with the aims of draft UDP policies ENV50 and ENV54 which relate to the enhancement of
-2-
the built environment and to the design and appearance of new shop fronts respectively. It
was suggested on behalf of the appellant that the requirement to fit a new shop front could
be made the subject of a condition in the event of the appeal being allowed. A planning
application for a new shop front and other external improvements was imminent at the time
of the inquiry.
High Street has been pedestrianised and, from what I saw, it is clearly the focus of
11.
town centre shopping activity in Mexborough. The eastern two-thirds of High Street is
covered by the PSF designation, but the western third is not. However, retailing is by far
the dominant use for the full length of the High Street pedestrian zone.
The planning application described the proposed use as an amusement centre.
However, in publicising the application, the Council had described it as an amusement
arcade. It was explained to me that amusement centres of the type proposed are aimed
primarily at shoppers and therefore rely on a shopping centre location. The proposed
amusement centre would offer amusements with prizes (AWP) with ancillary retail sales. A
window display of goods for sale would be maintained. On the other hand, amusement
arcades include a large proportion of amusement only (AO) machines. These are generally
of the computer game type, they are deliberately noisy and are aimed at young people. There
is no intention to install AO machines at the premises and it was accepted that they would be
inappropriate in an amusement centre intended to attract the adult shopping public. The
appellants' policy is not to admit customers under the age of 18. Licensing laws also operate
to exclude under 18s from any part of the premises where AWP machines with a cash payout
of more than £4 are operated. Objections which had been made in response to the Council's
publicity for the application and which referred to the attraction of youths and children to the
premises are therefore unfounded.
12.
Based on frontage length, non-retailing accounts for only 7.8% of the total frontage
13.
of the PSF. If the appeal premises were to be used for non-retail purposes, this would rise
to 8.7%. The Council's witness accepted that retailing would remain the predominant use
in the PSF. I agree and, on this basis, I do not consider that the proposed change of use
would undermine the retail function of the PSF, nor would it lead to a concentration of nonretail uses.
14.
Survey evidence of several other amusement centres of the type proposed showed that
they are a common feature of town centres in both primary and secondary locations. The
majority of customers are middle-aged women. For most customers, the visit to the
amusement centre is incidental to a shopping trip. A significant minority are attracted by the
amusement centre in its own right and a high proportion of these people also go on to visit
nearby shops. Adjoining traders found that their business had either benefitted from or had
been unaffected by the presence of the amusement centre. The number of customers attracted
to amusement centres is comparable with, and often higher than is typical for, the retail shops
around them. Commercial property managers found no difficulty in letting premises next to•
amusement centres and many now include them in their portfolios.
The Council suggested that the survey evidence was biased because it had not been
15.
independently collected. It was suggested also that it was flawed in that questions were
directed towards amusement centre customers rather than town centre users generally.
However, I found this argument unconvincing, particularly as the Council produced no survey
evidence of its own to demonstrate any different pattern of customer activity, effect on nearby
businesses or on lettings of adjoining and nearby commercial premises.
In view of the small proportion of non-retail uses in High Street, I consider that the
16.
proposed amusement centre would add to the diversity of uses. Because it would be aimed
-3-
at the shopping public, it would complement the main retail function of High Street. The
survey evidence provides a strong indication that it would be likely to make a positive
contribution to the viability and vitality of the town centre as a whole. It would complement
the shopping function of the town centre; it would provide an entertainment facility which
could help the evening economy and it could attract a significant minority of customers who
would not have visited the town centre otherwise. I do not consider that the proposed
amusement centre would undermine the objectives of policies SSH1 and SH5 of the emerging
UDP. I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed amusement centre would not
have any adverse effect on the viability and vitality of Mexborough.
17.
Various other matters were raised at the Inquiry. The Council is concerned that the
proposed amusement centre would introduce a lifeless window display which would have little
value in the ['SF and would seriously interrupt the continuity of the shopping frontage. I
acknowledge that the window displays in amusement centres tend to be somewhat static and
lack the interest and vibrancy of those of some shops. From what I saw in Mexborough and
from my experience of other town centres, many retailers choose not to mount a shop
window display at all! Others use the shop window only to display notices and posters.
There would therefore be no guarantee that retention of a retail use in these premises would
result in the retention of a shop window display. If used as an amusement centre, the
premises would retain much of the appearance of a shop and would attract customers in much
the same way as a shop. In my view, it would not have any significant impact
continuity of the High Street retail frontage.
18.
The operator of the existing amusement centre at the western end of High Street
expressed concern that Mexborough already has adequate amusement facilities of this type.
In addition to his own premises, AWP machines can be found in the towrits betting offices,
pubs and bingo halls. He felt that the proposed amusement centre would not add to the
town's evening economy because there is very little life in the town centre after the shops
have closed. From his own experiences, it would not be worthwhile to remain open in the
evening. Whilst I can sympathise with these concerns, it is not a function of planning control
to intervene in matters of competition or commercial judgement. I can therefore give them
limited weight.
The proposed use would not conflict with the Development Plan or undermine the
19.
aims of the emerging UDP. It would have no adverse effect on the vitality and viability of
the town centre as a whole. In my opinion, no compelling reasons to reject the proposal have
been put forward and I therefore intend to allow this appeal.
At the inquiry, it was agreed between the parties that conditions based on those
20.
imposed in respect of a similar development in Ashington, which was allowed on appeal in
1992 (ref TIAPP/F2930/A/92/198769/P4) would be appropriate in this case. Conditions
regarding soundproofing and limiting the activities are required to minimise the.effects of the
proposed use and to preclude the provision of other amusement facilities which, as I heard,
would be inappropriate in this location. Conditions requiring the installation of a new shop
front and maintenance of a window display are required to ensure that the proposal accords
with the requirements of the explanatory text to policy SH5 that proposed non-retail uses
should create an interesting and attractive shop frontage.
I have considered all other matters raised in the representations but none outweigh the
21.
considerations which have led to my conclusions in this appeal.
22.
appeal and grant planning permission for change of use to an amusement centre at 53 High
Street, Mexborough in accordance with the terms of the application (No 96163134951P1FL1L)
-4-
dated 29 November 1996 and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following
conditions:
1.
2.
no games of a sessional character shall be played on the premises;
the amusement machines installed in the premises shall be restricted to
amusement with prizes machines only;
3.
4.
the use hereby permitted shall not begin until the premises have been
sotrndproofed in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to
and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall provide
for the fitting of self-closing entrance and exit doors;
the use hereby permitted shall not begin until a new shop front has been
5.
installed in the premises in accordance with details which shall have first been
submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority;
6.
the shop window of the premises shall at all times have a display of retail
goods available for purchase within the premises.
23.
24.
Of
the Building Regulations 1991 with respect to access for disabled people.
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than Section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
25.
Yours faithfully
D C PINNER BSc DipTP MRTPI
Inspector
t
-5-
AppeaL Decision
The Planning Inspeclorale
4)09 Ke Wiry
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372
e-mail: enquiriespLanninyinspectorate.gsLgov.uk
Site visit made on 28 January 2002
2
by Peter Rosson
BA(Rons) Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport,
Local Government and the Regjons
Date
Fl
FEB 2007
Appeal Ref: APPIZI775/AIOl/1076509
17 Arundel Street, Landport, Portsmouth.
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refUsal to
grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Dagg Developments Ltd against the decision of Portsmouth City Council.
The application (Ref A*25719/AA), dated 24 July 2001, was refUsed by notice dated 10 October
2001
The development proposed is a change of use to an amusement centre.
•
-.
•
•
Summary of Decision: The appeal
to the conditions set out below.
is allowed
and planning permission
is
granted, subject
Main Issue
1.
In my opinion, the main issue for me to consider is the effect that the proposal would have
on the vitality and viability of the Portsmouth City Centre Shopping Centre, having regard
to the objective pf local and national planning policies.
Planning Policies
2.
—
S
The statutory development plan for the area is made up of the Hampshire County Structure
Plan 1996-2011 (Review) and the Portsmouth City Local Plan 1995. The Structure Plan's
Policy Si states that planning permission will be granted for development which maintains
and/or enhances the vitality and viability of town centres by, inter cilia, supporting the
primaiyshopping function of tho
e ntcs nd .diversi4ingJand..uses within them. Policy
KiThf the Local Plan goes on to say that planning applications for amusement centres will
normally be refused in the core areas of defined shopping centres.
have also been referred to policies of the First Deposit Draft of the Portsmouth City Local
Plan First Review 2001-2011. Policy DC33 states that amusement centres and arcades will
be permitted in town centres, provided that they would not detract from the character and
function of the centre and would not adversely affect its vitality and viability. The policy
also expects the amenity of local residents to be adequately protected. Policy CD5 is
concerned more generally with non-retail uses in what it describes as the Principal Retail
Area. They will only be permitted at ground floor level if they are considered appropriate
to a town centre location and would not result in the overall proportion of shopping
floorspace falling below 75% of the total.
3.
1
4.
PPG6 — Town Centres and Retail Developments is also relevant to the appeal. Its Annex D
provides that amusement centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas,
or in areas of mixed commercial development. The locations in which they are unlikely to
be acceptable include primary shopping areas.
Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/A!O1/1076509
Reasons
5.
No. 17 is a vacant shop unit that is to be retained as part of the redevelopment of the
Arundel Way shopping arcade. The property fronts onto Arundel Street itself to the east of
its junction with Commercial Road and it lies within the core area of the shopping centre as.
defined in the adopted Local Plan. The proposal therefore represents an apparent conflict
with both that plan's Policy 521 and PPG6 which seek to direct amusement centres to other
locations. On the other hand, I interpret the Structure Plan's Policy Si and Policy DC33 of
the First Review as taking a more permissive approach, provi4ed that their criteria are
satisfied. The Structure Plan is a part of the development plan that is more recent than
PPC6 and I consider that Policy DC33 is also entitled to considerable weight as a material
consideration. The appellant's statement to the effect that neither it, nor the related Policy
CD5, are the subject of any objections has not been disputed and it is therefore reasonable
tO assume that those policies are unlikely to be significantly modified.
6.
If Policy CD5
is rQad together with Policy DC33, it is also reasonable to conclude that, in
principle, amusement centres are appropriate to a town centre location. There is a
disa&eement however, between the appellant and an objector as to the effect of the
proposal in terms of the 75% threshold of the former policy. It is said for HiM Caterers Ltd
that, in the 1 l2m of frontage between Commercial Road and the entrance to Arundel Way,
Class Al uses are already only 59% of the total length and he change of use would reduce
that figure to 54%. I accept that figure, but it is clear that Policy CD5 is expressed in terms
of floorspace, rather than frontage and there is also nothing to suggest that the test is to be
applied to such a limited area as that selected. The appellant, on the other hand, ha
calculated that, in terms of total floor area, the ratio of Class Al. uses to others would
remain little changed at 97%: 3% and I .have no reason to doubt that figure.
.
7.
I therefore consider that there is no conflict with Policy CD5 and the appeal must therefore
turn on whether the proposal would meet the criteria of Policy DC33. The Council does not
argue that there are any local residents whose amenities might be affected, but both it and
HIM Caterers Ltd contend that the remaining tests of the policy would not be met.
8.
The objector's case is that there is a very serious shortage of available retail properties in
the City Centre,_accompanied by a very high level of demand. It is also said that the current
Idihcy raT&i artffiWl3Effbióãü öflffeliiji6lume of vacant fl5orspace at both
Arundel Way and the Tricorn Centre which is on the northern edge of the city centre and
which is also to be redeveloped. It is therefore argued that it would be at least premature to
permit the loss of a shop unit, particularly in a frontage where the mix of uses is already
such that there is only a tenuous link to the principal retail area of Commercial Road. In
that respect, it should also be borne in mind that pedestrian flows in Arundel Street are
relatively weak, thus thrther emphasising the need to retain retail uses.
-
9.
have to say that I agree with the appellant's view that the survey material that is said to
demonstrate demand does not generally show a specific preference for either Portsmouth or
the city centre. Nonetheless, the supporting text to Policy CD5 does state that, excluding
the Tricorn centre, vacancy levels are low in the city centre and retail interest is consistently
high. On the other hand, I consider that it must be at least possible that any weakness of
pedestrian flows in the street is partly attributable to the discouraging effect of the largely
vacant Arundel Way development. In my opinion, it is also reasonable to take account of
I
2
Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/A/0l/1076509
of the approved scheme for that development because I am told that it
will include an 'anchor' store of 3000rn2 and the removal of four exiting non-retail uses.
the probable impact
10. The Council is rightly concerned to ensure that that scheme, which includes improvements
to shop fronts and landscaping is not compromised, but, in my view, it would strengthen the
retail ifinction of Arundel Streetto an extent that would not be significantly threatened by
the appeal proposal. In that respect, it is also relevant to bear in mind that the premises in
question have a frontage of only 4m and a floorspace of 143m2. Even if the conclusions of
HiM Caterers Ltd about the overall position of the retail market are correct, I do not believe
that the proposed change of use of so modest a property would be detrimental to either
Arundel Street pr the city centre as a whole in terms of the relevant criteria of Policy DC33.
In that respect, the views of other Inspectors in the appeal decisions cited by the appellant
are also relevant. My colleagues have accepted that amusement centres can not only be an
attraction in their own right, but that their customers often go on to visit nearby shops. I
share that view.
Conclusions
11. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore
conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions. None are suggested in
the Council's appeal documents, but I note that the committee report on the application
proposed conditions relating to noise levels and limiting the use to amusement with prizes
machines only. I consider that they would be appropriate. In addition, the appellant
proposes to maintain a window display and, in my opinion, a condition to that effect would
also be reasonable.
Formal Decision
of the powers transferred to me, I allow the appeal and grant planning
permission for the change of use of 17 Arundel Street, Landport, Portsmouth to an
amusement centre in accordance with the terms of the application [Ref. A*25719/AAJ dated
24 July 2001, and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions:
12. In exercise
1)
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of' five years
fromthe date of this deciicth.
2)
The use of the premists shall be limited to the playing of amusement with prizes
machines,
3)
The shop windows of the premises shall be used at all times for the display of goods.
4)
The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the premises have been
soundproofed in accordance with a scheme to be first approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
Information
that may be required under any
enactment, by-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
13. This decision does not convey any approval or consent
•
I
'
14. An applicant for any approval required by a condition attached to this permission has a
statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if that approval is reffised or granted
3
t
Appeal Decision APP/Z1 775/A!01/1 076509
conditionally or if the authority fails to give notice of its decision within the prescribed
period.
15.
Altention is drawn to the enclosed note relating to the requirements of the Chronically Sick
and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended.
separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of this
decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court.
16. A
INSPECTOR
4
YfArolygiaetb Gynllunio
Adeitad
y
The Planning
Garon, Pare Cathays, Caerdydd, CE! 3NQ
Inspectorate
Crown Buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CFI 3t4Q
Uniongyrchol 01222 825538
Direct Line 01222 825538
Fa 01222
Ffacs 01222 825150
Pm
825150
2
i,j
Roger Etchells
&
Company
Allison Street
Digbeth
BIRMINGHAM
MR Roger Etchells
'13
(c
T/APP/D6820/A/98/512304
855TH
•..•
DIIDyd*&
Dear
25 FEB 1999
Sirs
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT
1990,
SECTION 78 AND SCHEDULE 6
APPEAL BY ARCADIA DEVELOPMENTS
APPLICATION NO: 980578
1.
I have been appointed by the Secretary of State f or Wales
to determine this appeal against the decision of the
Ceredigion County Council to refuse planning permission in
respect of an application for change of use to amusement
centre at 18 Harford Square, Lainpeter.
I held a local inquiry
into the appeal on 19 January 1999, and carried out site
inspections of the appeal site and an amusement centre at
Terrace Road, Aberystwyth on 20 January 1999.
From the submissions made at the inquiry and my
inspection of the site and surrounding area, I consider that
the main issues in this case are, firstly whether the proposal
would unacceptably han the retailing character of the town
centre of Lampeter in tens of its vitality, viability and
attractiveness to shoppers and, secondly whether the proposal
would adversely affect the character and appearance of the
Lampeter Conservation Area.
2.
The relevant local plan policies are derived from the
Plan, which was placed on deposit in January
1998.
However, the Council has resolved in January 1999 not
to progress with the plan and iill now proceed to prepare the
Unitary Development Plan instead. The main policy referred to
is 501 which states that primary shopping and retail areas are
designated for Aberystwyth, Cardigan and Lampeter. Within
these designated areas, the change of use of retail premises
from class Al at ground floor level will not be permitted.
The explanation of the policy notes that the shopping cores
should be protected from inappropriate uses or developments
to lead to unattractive shopping frontages or streets.
3.
I
L
Ceredigion Local
likely
Un a Asiattiac/hap Gweithredo! Adran yr Amgyic-hedd. Trafnidiaeth a ,- Rha,,barthan a 'r Swyddfa Gymreig
An Executive Agency in I/Ic Department of E,rvironnent, Transport and die Regions, and the Welsh Office
R
4.
There have been 2 specific objections to the policy
concerned, the essence of which is that it is too inflexible
in excluding all non—retail uses.
Given that the current
local plan will not be subject to further scrutiny, and that
the publication of a draft version of a Unitary Development
Plan is some way off, I consider that there is no guarantee
that the policy will remain in its unainended form, as the plan
would need to undergo a fresh round of consultations.
Consequently, the policy can only be accorded very limited
weight, bearing in mind the advice of paragraph 32 of Planning
Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy (PPW) on local plans which
are not far advanced.
You say that the inclusion of the word 'inappropriate'
in the explanatory text of policy SOl suggests a test which:
could make some non-retail uses acceptable, provided that
there would be me adverse effect on the primary shopping area.
In contrast, the Council states that all changes to non—retail
uses would be inappropriate. From my reading of the text, it
would not appear to entirely preclude non—retail uses in such
areas provided that they do not create unattractive shopping
frontages or undermine the retailing character. Furthermore,
the Council's submission that the proposal would be contrary
to the policy intention to promote retailing is misplaced.
I
consider that from my analysis of the policy itself, its main
thrust is to prevent changes of use from Class Al to non—
retail uses. While I accept the need to encourage the
shopping function of the town in a wider context, the test
that a change of use from a retailing to non-retailing use has
to positively promote retailing would be too onerous.
5.
Although I appreciate that any future revision of this
policy is a matter for a unitary development plan to
determine, my view is that the policy wording itself, in
seeking to prevent all such changes of use, goes further than
the guidance as expressed in paragraph 178 of PPW. While this
acknowledges the importance of retailing in primary shopping
areas, which should not be dominated by non-retail uses, such
as banks and financial institutions in a way that can
undermine the retail function, it is nevertheless less
prescriptive in tone.
6.
A material consideration in this case is the character of
the shopping centre of the small market town of Lampeter.
Within the hierarchy of shopping centres of Ceredigion, it
ranks below the sub—regional centre of Aberystwyth and also
Cardigan. The shopping centre is one of generally small shop
units, interspersed with other uses and where national
multiple retailers are weakly represented. The defined
primary shopping area coincides with the general shopping and
commercial area with no delineated secondary shopping area,
which is characteristic of larger centres. Although the town
centre is drawn more widely than this, the predominant use of
the centre beyond the primary shopping area is residential
with intermittent business uses only.
I observed that the
primary shopping area has a much broader mix of uses than that
7.
-2k
t
defined in paragraph 178 of PPW, in which such areas are
characterised by a high proportion of retail uses.
8.
The Council submits that the retailing base of the town
centre is already low with only 42% of the units identified in
retail use within the primary shopping area.
Having regard,
however to the small-scale of the centre and its diverse range
of commercial uses, I consider that the relatively low
representation of retail use is unsurprising and does not
indicate that the shopping centre is vulnerable.
From the
statistics provided by the Council, the contrary would appear
to be the case.
The number of shops has increased by 4 units
over the period 1995—1998, while the number of vacant units
recorded in the respective surveys of 1995 and 1998 is
extremely low.
The town is also noted for a number of
specialist shops, which draw customers from a wider area. All
this suggests that Lanpeter is a fairly buoyant small centre
and not one in decline or under threat.
In view of its
particular retailing character, the case for resisting changes
of use from retail to non—retail uses is less compelling
unless serious han is proven.
The fact that the appeal premises are close to a main
road junction at the centre of the town is of no great
significance.
The main concentration of shops is around
Harford Square itself, particularly near the junction of High
Street and College Street. This becomes less marked as one
moves east into Bridge Street, where the pavement on the north
side is fairly narrow, and retail uses are less well
represented.
There are a number of Class A3 uses in the
vicinity, including an adjoining fish and chip shop which was
granted planning permission in 1983. These uses are fairly
typical for a centre such as Lampeter which is a market and
university town.
9.
10.
At the inquiry, you clarified that the proposed use would
be in respect of the ground floor of the two storey building.
Your clients intend to provide a new shop front with goods on
display in the window. These can be directly purchased or can
be bought in exchange for vouchers won at the amusement
machines within.
They operate most successfully where there
is already significant retailing activity or reasonable
pedestrian flows.
Since, it is accepted that this form of amusement centre,
catering mainly for shoppers already in the town centre, would
not be close to housing, or near schools, churches, hospitals
and hotels, the main issue in this case is whether the
proposal would harm the retailing character of the shopping
centre.
The centre would not be the arcade type amusement
characterised by noisy games and jackpot type machines,
attracting the younger more boisterous element of the
population.
It would be an enclosed unit with a conventional
shopping frontage. Furthermore, there are no dwellings
nearby.
The Council w'ould have no objection to the change of
use of a non—retail use to this type of amusement centre in
11.
L
—3—
Si
t
the shopping area.
Policy TRC14 relating to amusement centres
is only of relevance in repeating the advice as set out in
policy Sal to the effect that such proposals would be
permitted inside the defined town centre but outside the
primary shopping area. The criteria relating to seafront
locations and loss of general amenity do not apply to your
clients' proposal.
In response to the Council's hypothesis that this
proposal would weaken the retailing character by drawing
shoppers away from shops, you say that according to your
surveys elsewhere the majority of customers visiting this kind
of establishment are already engaged on a shopping trip (85%).
In terms of attracting customers, the proposed use compares
favourably with most Class Al uses. The fact that it would:
attract about 15% of its clientele whose reason for visiting
the town centre is to patronise the amusement centre is a
positive aspect of the proposal. I do not accept the
Council's argument that limited numbers would be drawn based
primarily on shoppers in the town. The number of persons that
would be drawn into the unit would be from the wider section
of persons resorting to the town centre, and not solely from
the shopping public.
In my opinion, such a proposal would not
inhibit shoppers from visiting retail units in the vicinity.
The point raised by the Council also takes no account of the
fact that some retailing, albeit on an ancillary basis, would
take place on the premises which would have prizes and goods
for sale displayed in the window.
There would be no dead
shopping frontage adjoining the pavement, more characteristic
of Class A2 and A3 uses.
The fact that there would be no shop
behind the window display is of little significance, as
numbers of customers visiting amusement centres are often as
high as more well—frequented Class Al uses.
There would
therefore be no loss of vitality and attractiveness to the
shopping centre.
12.
13.
The Council accepts that an amusement centre of this
nature contributes more to the vitality and attractiveness to
shoppers than P.2 and P.3 uses.
The proposal would not be in
conflict with the relevant policy objective in seeking to
prevent the erosion or dilution of primary shopping areas by
inappropriate non—retail uses.
I conclude that the loss of
one shop and its replacement by a non—retail use of this
character would not result in demonstrable harm to the
shopping area.
On the question of your clients' desire to keep the
premises open until 10pm for 6 days a week, I consider that
this is a matter of commercial judgenent unless this activity
As there
would cause proven harm outside main shopping hours.
opening
are no dwellings in the immediate vicinity, later
hours would not have an adverse effect on the neighbourhood.
Moreover, this form of use does not attract a large
congregation of young persons which might otherwise give rise
I consider that with the opening of
to public order problems.
the premises in the daytime mainly for shoppers and in the
14.
-4—
k
t
evenings for other customers, this facility would enliven the
town centre throughout the day in an acceptable manner.
The Council also raises the effect of the proposal on the
Lampeter Conservation Area in which the appeal premises are
located. The main advice is obtained from paragraph 124 of
PPW which states that local authorities must pay special
attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of such areas. Both policies EN2 of
the approved Dyfed Structure Plan and ENV14 of the local plan
reflect this advice.
15.
16.
The Council witness accepted that the installation of a
new shop front would physically enhance the street frontage.
Nevertheless, he maintained that the loss pf a shop would harm
the retailing attractiveness of the centre of a historic
market town, designated a conservation area. I have already
concluded above that the proposal would not diminish the
retailing character. The proposal would involve considerable
investment in giving the shop a substantial facelift, thereby
contributing to maintaining the vitality and attractiveness of
the adjoining shopping frontage and to the viability of
Lampeter as a town centre as a whole, Conditions on the shop
front and the retention of a window display can be attached to
any planning permission in order to safeguard the character
and appearance of the retailing frontage and the conservation
area.
I conclude that the proposal would not be in conflict
with the statutory duty to preserve or enhance the
conservation area nor would the development diminish the
retailing attractiveness of the town centre. The proposal
would not be out of accord with the development plan nor in
conflict with the main objectives underlying policy 501.
17.
I have taken into consideration all other matters raised,
but none of the points made materially affect my conclusions.
In granting planning permission, I intend attaching a nuither of
conditions.
In the interest of clarity, planning permission is
granted for ground floor use only. A condition is attached to ensure
that the amusement centre is restricted to the playing of amusement
machines with prizes and ancillary retail sales to preclude 'funfair'
type amusements, which are characterised by noisy games and jackpot
machines. This would otherwise encourage the congregation of younger
persons, which would not be appropriate in a predominantly shopping
location.
I accept the need for a condition requiring that there
should be a permanent display of goods in the shop window in order to
retain the shopping frontage, which your clients would require to
attract customers. I do not, however, consider it necessary to
insist that a new display be placed in the window every three months
A condition
and be regularly monitored, as this is too prescriptive.
on the submission of details for a new shop front is necessary for
reasons given above. A condition on sound proofing, self—closing
doors and loudspeakers is necessary to prevent undue noise and
disturbance in the street, which could otherwise reduce the
18.
—5—
attractiveness of the adjoining centre for shoppers.
I do not accept
hours,
the need to limit the proposal to normal shopping
for reasons
set out in paragraph 14.
19.
For the above reasons and in exercise of powers transferred to
me, I hereby allow this appeal and grant planning permission for
change of use to amusement centre at 18 Rarford Square, Lampeter
in accordance with the terms of the application (No 980578)
dated 8 June 1998 and the plans submitted therewith, subject
to the following conditions:
the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the
expiration of 5 years from the date of this letter;
1.
2.
the permission shall relate to the ground floor only;
3.
the premises shall be used for the playing of amusement
machines with prizes only and ancillary retail sales, and for no
other purpose;
a display of goods for sale shall at all times be retained
in the whole of the window frontage of the premises;
4.
the use hereby permitted shall not begin until a new shop
front has been installed in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority, as an application for full planning permission;
5.
6.
the use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the
premises have been sound proofed and fitted with self—closing
doors, in accordance with a planning application to be submitted
to and approved by the local planning authority;
7.
no loudspeakers, other than for the relaying of background
music, shall be used within the premises and none shall be
affixed to the outside thereof;
8.
the use hereby permitted shall not take place other than
between the hours of 0900 hours and 2200 hours - Monday to
Saturday, and between 1000 hours and 1800 hours on Sunday.
20.
An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by
a condition of this permission has a statutory right of appeal to the
Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or
granted conditionally or if the authority fails to give notice of its
k
The developer's attention is drawn to the enclosed note
21.
relating to the requirements of the Building Regulations 1991 with
respect to access for disabled people.
This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be
22.
required under any enactment, bye—law, order or regulation other than
section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
S
t
-6-
Your attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 74 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which
requires consent to be obtained prior to the demolition of buildings
in a conservation area.
23.
Yours faithfully
G. Rees BA (Hons)
Dip TP MRTPI
Inspector
L
—7—
p
THE SCOTTISH OFFICE
Inquiry Reporters
Greenside Lane
Edinburgh El-Il MG
2
Telephone 0131-244
Fax 0131-244
Mr D H Biesterfield
The Noble Organisation
Your ref SN/ET/JL277
Dukesway Court
Team Vailey
Gateshead
Our ref P/FPA/5S/290
lA.
NEll
S
5680
April 1996
OPJ
Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1972: SECTION 33 AND
SCHEDULE 7
APPEAL BY LUXURY LEISURE: PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE OF VACANT RETAIL
SHOP TO AMUSEMENT CENTRE WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES AT 72 GRAHAM
STREET, AIRDRIE
1.
1 refer to the appeal, which I have been appointed to determine, against the decision of
the former Monklands District Council to refuse planning permission for the above
development I held a public local inquiry into the appeal on 27 March 1996, followed by an
accompanied visit to the appeal property and its vicinity, and have considered the evidence
and written submissions concerning the appeal.
The vacant appeal property, 112 square metres in floor area and formerly a card shop,
the south side of a pedestrianised part of Graham Street, west of the roundabout junction
with Gartlea Road to the south and Baillies Lane to the north. It is a two storey unit in a
development of shops and offices of the early 1970s, and part of a long unbroken run of retail
shops. It has a narrow frontage parallel to the street and a longer return frontage facing east
onto a wider part of the Street. At the corner of Gartlea Road is a Somerfield supermarket,
which presents completely blanked off windows to Graham Street. Between the supermarket
and no. 72 are a discount jeans shop and the 'Inxpence 99p Store'. On the other side of the
vacant unit the nearest occupants are an Intersport sports shop, Greggs' bakery, Holland &
Barrett health foods, and John Meozies. At the corner of Graham Street and Baillies Lane,
opposite Somerfield, is the former Safeway store vacated when the company moved to the
site of the former Broomfleld Park football ground to the east of Gartlea Road.
2.
is on
Planning permission has already been separately granted for altered elevations,
including on the frontage a central doorway with 'closed-back' window displays on either
side, and the continuation of the window display on the return frontage. It is proposed to use
most of the ground floor as an amusements-with-prizes area, with an office, customer care
room and disabled toilet at the back. Inside the double outer doors there would be a small
lobby with a thrther set of self-closing double doors. In the smaller upstairs accommodation
there would be storage, toilets for the able-bodied, and a stafijoom.
3.
L
iii
CASE COPIED CV
coFPES
p29O.doc
1
UNDER LICENCE FROM HMSO
? nL_
Tel: O1452-31O5$
p
Li
Mr D H Biesterfield
P/PPAISS/290
cj April 1996
The application was made on 24 August 1995 and a refusal notice dated 12 October
1995 was issued by the district council, giving the reasons:
(1) The proposal is contrary to policy COM3 of the adopted Monklands District Local
Plan which states that the district council will resist any further changes of use outwith
class 1 use within the defined 'Retail Core Areas' of both Airdrie and Coatbridge
Town Centres.
(2) The proposal, by virtue of involving the introduction of a 'bad neighbour' use
within ground floor premises lying within Airdrie's Retail Core Area, is contrary to
policy COM1 1 of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan:
4.
In the Monidands Local Plan, as finalised in December 1991 and adopted in January
1995, Graham Street, west of the junction with Gartlea Road and Baillies Lane, is included
within the 'retail core area'. Policy COM3. titled "Maintain Retail Core Areas", states:
"Within the defined retail core areas of Airdrie and Coatbridge the District Council resist
any further changes of use out of Class 1 (Retail Use) and will encourage changes into
Class 1 (Retail Use)". Policy COM4, for the 'secondary (retail) core areas', including that
opposite the appeal site, is that "... the District Council will support shopping and related
uses (Classes 1, 2 and 3) (e.g. Building Societies and Estate Agents) subject to other policies
in this Plan. See also COMIO and COMJJ." Policy COM1O deals with hot food shops and
restaurants. Policy COMI 1. titled "Social, Entertainment and Commercial Bad Neighbour
Uses" is: "The District Council will accept the development of Social, Entertainment and
Commercial 'bad neighbour' uses in Secondary (Retail) Core Areas and on the upper floors
of Retail Core Areas, subject to other policies in this Plan, and where there is no anticipated
adverse effect on the amenity of local residents".
5.
Summary of Main Points of Case for the Appellants
The appellant company is part of the Noble Organisation which at present operates an
6.
amusement centre of almost exactly the same size as that proposed, at South Bridge Street
which is to the north of the defined primary core of Airdrie's shopping centre. South Bridge
Street is included within the 'secondary core area', but it has been suffering a long-term
decline, as acknowledged in the local plan, and no longer meets the company's need for a
good pedestrian flow. The proposed move to 72 Graham Street, where there are strong
pedestrian flows, has the support of the landlords of the parade of shops; they see the use as in
the better long-term interests of their investment than use as a discount store for which there
has also been interest At present vacancy rates in the town centre, on a floorspace basis, are
exaggerated by the recent move of Safeway. Whilst there are enough vacant units to provide
a choice for firms intending to move into the centre, it remains in reasonable health and it can
be expected that the former Safeway store will not remain vacant for long.
The appeal building is not listed or in a conservation area. There are no residents in
the vicinity. The intended use by the Noble Organisation is not in any realistic sense a 'bad
neighbour' in terms of environmental impact in the context of a shopping centre, subject to
the observance of routine conditions. This is true even where amusement centres are under
residential flats and has been repeatedly accepted in appeal decisions in Scotland, England
and Wales. It is very significant That the district council, which has had the opportunity to
observe any problems caused by the Noble Organisatiori amusement centre nearby in Airdrie
town centre, has not alleged that the use would have any adverse impact on amenity. The
window displays would, in keeping with the company's usual practice and surveys of public
téäëtions elsewhere, be visually very acceptable and maintain the overall retail character of
7.
2
MrD H Biesterfield
Cj
PIPPAISS/290
April 1996
the frontage. The company's window displays are frequently changed and contribute more to
the visual liveliness of a shopping centre than do the frontages of class 2 or class 3 uses, or
indeed many retail shops with blank windows or minimal displays. The amusement centres
also help to provide activity over a greater proportion of the week than many class 2 financial
and similar services.
Nobles' amusement centres, which have evolved over the last twenty years, offer
amusements-with-prizes machines, non-sessional prize bingo, retail sales and in many cases
snacks, and are not to be confused with amusement arcades that are deliberately noisy and are
aimed at young users. A minimum age limit is adopted of 18 or 21, as locally appropriate.
Numerous surveys have shown that they attract a predominantly female and mature clientele,
most of whom are mainly in the area for shopping. Some come principally for the
amusements and combine these trips with shopping However, since for most customers
amusements are only a subordinate reason for visiting the area, a location with strong
pedestrian flows is essential. Hence the company has to seek locations in prime shopping
reas and cannot be content with less busy secondary locations even when those might avoid
difficulties with planning authorities. Far from such an amusement centre being dead
frontage or inimical to the retail strength of an area, surveys of neighbouring shopkeepers
show that they are generally seen as neutral in effect but are seen by some as making a
positive contribution.. They often attract more customers than many retail shops. A direct
benefit for other businesses, including small local shops which have made arrangements, is
the spending of prize vouchers.
8.
The local plan policies are based on survey work and trading conditions of the late
1980s. They were finalised before the publication of National Planning Policy Guideline
(NPPG) I in January 1994, the draft NPPO on Retailing in February 1995, or the replacement
Strathclyde Structure Plan as submitted to the Secretary of State, which recognises changes in
retailing in the last few years and the increased role and contribution of service uses in town
9.
centres. Even in its own terms policy COM3 would have to be treated in the context of the
reasoned justification set out in paragraph 5.9 of the local plan: "It is -. essential to have
policies which will resist proposals for commercial development which threaten the viability
of the retail cores and which will support proposals to enhance and extend them
There
are particular attractions to areas which have a high proportion of shops, and this attraction
cannot be matched by 'secondary' retail areas where there is a much higher proportion of
non-retail uses. It is considered highly desirable to maintain a heavy bias towards shops in
the retail cores of Airdrie and Coatbridge
.
This wording does not suggest that the retail cores should be occupied exclusively by
class 1 shops. On the contrary it indicates that the word "resist" in the policy - not "refuse" or
similar - implies some flexibility according to circumstances. This interpretation would be
consistent with the fact that the council has allowed within the retail core a bank in Bank
Street, a Job Centre in Stirling Street, arid a café and an estate agency in Anderson Street.
Since no harm to the retail attractiveness or function of the core area has been shown, it is
arguable that the appeal scheme should be judged to comply with local plan policy COM3.
As for policy COM1 1, this is positively worded in regard to so called bad neighbour uses in
the secondary areas and upper floors in core areas, but is irrelevant to the present proposal ott
the ground floor in a core area. Its objectives cannot be separated from those of policy
10.
(DM3.
11.
The district council's Retail Survey of March 1995 shows no concern about service
uses pushing out retail uses from the retai1 core area. It was produced after the draft NPPG on
ppass29o.doc
I
3
Mr D H Biesterfield
P/PPA/SS/290
'
April 1996
hours
Retailing and recognises the benefits to town centres of service uses with wider opening
to the vitality and
than shops, and the "critical importance" of uses other than retail outlets
vacancies. The
about
is
viability of town centres. Its main concern in Airdrie town centre
the secondary
appeal proposal would reduce the vacancy rate in the core area and release in
area a unit that could be attractive for a local trader.
The draft NPPG acknowledges that shopping and leisure uses can be complementary,
12.
in paragraph 35 that nonand encourages a diversity of uses in town centres, while warning
would
retail uses should not be allowed to dominate primary shopping areas in a way that
be
area
would
core
undermine the retail function. Since the increase in non-retail uses in the
there would be no
from 23%% to 24%% by units or from 22% to 23.7% by frontage and
'bunching' of non-retail uses, such dominance or undermining cannot be a realistic concern.
retail use
The fact that the parade of shops including 72 Graham Street is otherwise entirely in
for a considerable distance should encourage a relaxed attitude to the modest change
proposed to the character of the one small unit.
Whilst paragraph 66 of the draft NPPG says that amusement centres are "generally
13.
most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas, or in areas of mixed commercial
development", and "unlikely to be acceptable in primary shopping areas", it is important to
note that in the glossary the term 'amusement centre' does not refer only to the innocuous
kind now proposed: it is very widely defined, to include "buildings used for such activities as
bingo halls and clubs, prize bingo centres, amusement-with-prizes machines (for example
fruit machines) and amusement-only machines (pin tables and video games)". Some of these
uses have very different implications, particularly for noise and disturbance and the type and
age of user, from a Nobles' amusement centre.
Under section l8A of the 1972 Act the application must be determined in accordance
14.
with the terms of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Thus, even if it is decided that the proposal does not comply with the development plan, other
material considerations must come into play. Among these are the rather out-dated character
of the local plan shopping policies themselves, their basis in survey information from the
1980s that does not reflect present conditions, and the probability that policies drafted in the
light of more recent information and more recent national policy would be substantially
different.
Paragraph 44(4) of NPPG1 makes a very relevant point, that "... where there is no
15.
conflict with declared policy objectives, other material considerations will be of particular
importance." In this case it has been shown, without even an attempt at contradictory
evidence or argument by the council, that in all practical effects the proposed use would
complement neighbouring shops, and that it would not undermine the objectives of
maintaining a "high proportion" of retail uses and a "heavy bias" towards them in the core
area. It would help to reduce the vacancy rate in the town centre, which has according to the
1995 survey begun to concern the council. There has not been a single objection from any
trader or anyone else. Since the 'other material considerations' are strongly favourable, in
this instance the basic presumption in favour of planning permission should prevail over the
letter of development plan policy. The appeal should be allowed, subject to similar
conditions to those regularly applied in successfi.il appeals of this kind, as appropriate to the
circumstances of the appeal property.
ppass29odoc
4
ivlIr D
H Biesterfield
PIPPAJSS/290
S
April 1996
Summary of Main Points of Case for the Planning Authority
The defined retail core contains the most important elements of Airdrie' s town centre
retail function, and is in good health, with high pedestrian flows and occupancy rates. Part of
the vacated Safeway store is imminently expected to be leased to a major multiple trader of
household goods. The retail core is complemented by the defined secondary area. The
viability and vitality of the retail core need to be protected by a firm policy preventing loss of
retail units, as provided in local plan policy COM3. This policy, together with the
complementary policies COM4 and COM1I, has been through a full local plan process and
thus has the implicit suppoit of investors, businesses, town centre users, the general public,
and the Secretary of State who did not hinder the adoption of the Monklands Local Plan.
Policies COM4 and COM1 1 provide opportunities for the location of service uses such as
amusement centres within the town centre. COM4 is a liberal policy with no restriction on
the accumulation or bunching of non-retail uses. However, any violation of the present
dominance of retail use in the core area would erode the main retail fbnction. The appeal
scheme is plainly contrary to policy COM3 and also to COM1 1, as it is for an entertainment
use regarded as a 'bad neighbour' for the purposes of publicising planning applications, and
this policy directs such uses to other parts of the centre than ground floors in the core area.
The local plan was adopted as recently as January 1995 and is therefore up-to-date.
16.
17.
Even if Nobles' anusenient centres attract people and have frontages made to
resemble shops, in planning terms they are little different from other kinds of 'amusement
centre' in the broad sense of the definition in the draft NPPG. Planning permission would run
with the land, whoever owned it, and would not be personal to Nobles. The proposed use
could not be part of the town centre shopping function. Its patrons might also be visiting
town centre shops, but it could not maintain the range of shopping choice that is the essential
attraction of the retail core, in the same way as a genuine retail use could. A rigorous
application of the local plan policies is consistent not only with section 1 8A but with the
support for the town centre's retail function given by the Strathclyde Structure Plan, and with
paragraphs 13 and 30 of NPPG1 and paragraphs 30, 35 and 66 to 68 of the draft NPPG on
Retailing. There are no malerial considerations indicating that the terms of the development
plan should not be followed. On the contrary, the concentration of retail uses in this core
shopping frontage particularly merits protection, not least when there has been interest in the
appeal property from prospective discount retailers.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the evidence presented at the public local inquiry, the written
submissions and the site inspection, I consider that the first determining issue in this appeal is
whether the proposal would be in accordance with the terms of the development plan. On a
straightforward reading of policy COM3 I find that the appeal scheme cannot comply with it,
since there would be a change from class 1 retail to another use. COM1 1 is a permissive
policy in regard to categories of premises not including the appeal unit, and only by
implication opposes the appeal scheme. Policy COM3 is thus the main policy to be assessed
against other material considerations, under section 1 8A.
18.
The second determining issue is therefore whether there are sufficiently favourable
considerations to justify a departure from the policies contained in the plan.
19.
I
6
Since policy COM3 is expressed in very inflexible terms, even apart from the advice
paragraph 44(4) of NPPG1 it would be appropriate to look closely at the declared
objectives behind the policy, to see how they would be affected by the proposed use. On the
20.
in
ppass29O.doc
5
Mr D H Biesterfield
PIPPAISSI29O
April 1996
figures for proportions of retail and non-retail uses in the core area I find no threat, from the
particular use proposed, to the "high proportion" of retail uses in the core area of Airdrie
town centre, or to the "heavy bias" in their favour. I also consider that the appeal unit's
position in an otherwise continuous run of retail shops must make change to the proposed use
intrinsically of less concern than if it would lead to bunching of non-retail uses or would add
to an already relatively high proportion of, for instance, over 30% of non-retail uses.
Moreover, an amusement centre of the type proposed is, according to virtually uncontested
evidence, a distinctive enough use, particularly in its attraction of shoppers and in its
appearance, to be treated differently from most other service uses and not to open any
floodgates for changes out of retail use in the core area. There is no evidence before me to
warrant a conclusion that the proposed change of use would discourage potential customers
from visiting the town centre, or from passing from one part of the centre to another. It is
doubtless true that an amusement centre would be no attraction at all to many potential
shoppers, but the same must be true for many individuals about various kinds of retail shop,
such as a butcher's shop for vegetarians or a book shop for those who never read books. For
these reasons I find no conflict with the objectives behind policy COM3.
21.
such
There is no evidence whatsoever that either directly, such as by noise, or indirectly,
as by attracting unruly groups to the street outside, the proposed use would have any
more adverse effect on amenity than the average retail shop has. In practical terms it would
not be a bad neighbour, though I recognise that it is probably standard procedure for planning
authorities to publicise applications for any kind of 'amusement centre' under the 'bad
neighbour' provisions of article 12(5)(b) and schedule 7 of the General Development
Procedure (Scotland) Order 1992.
To judge from the approved thawing for the frontage and the bro chute of photographs
of Nobles' amusement centres (production RIE2 1), the unit would have a more pleasing and
interesting appearance than many of the shops in the retail core of Airdrie. The brochure
suggests a certain predictability and uniformity in the window displays, which might not be
seen as enhancing areas of very eminen.t architectural or specialist shopping character, but
such reservations do not apply to the undistinguished and somewhat dated buildings in this
part of the town centre. Given that the Somerfield supermarket, one of the town centre's
magnet stores, shows a totally blank façade to the main shopping street, it would not be
difficult for the proposed displays to surpass it in attractiveness. Having seen the discrepancy
in quality of presentation between the major multiples and various discount stores in Graham
Street, I am not surprised that the landlords apparently regard the familiar appearance of a
Nobles' amusement centre as better for the image of the parade than the arrival of another
discount store.
22.
With regard to the basic principle set out in paragraph 13 of NIPPG1, that "planning
policies and decisions should not prevent, inhibit or delay development which should properly
be permitted", I conclude that the considerations favourable to the appeal scheme are by a
wide inargih enough to overcome the obstacle of development plan policy. I shall therefore
allow the appeal, subject to conditions that are necessary in order to ensure that the character
of the use remains that on which this favourable assessment has been founded. There has
been no objection to the proposed hours of 0900 to 2200, and I find none.
23.
into account all the matters raised at the inquiiy or in written
1 have taken
submissions, but there is nothing that could lead to substantially different covclusions.
24.
For the above reasons, and in exercise of the powers delegated to me, I hereby allow
this appeal and grant planning permission for the development proposed in the application
25.
ppassl9O.dc,c
6
Mr D H Biesterfield
P/PPA/SS1290
C\ April 1996
dated 24 August 1995 (Monklands District Council no. 95458), subject to the following
conditions:(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within five years of the date of
this letter.
(2) The use of the premises as an amusement centre shall not begin until there has
been implemented a scheme of soundproofmg, including the provision of self-closing
doors and the treatment of any mechanical ventilation or air conditioning equipment,
which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority, the premises shall
not be open to the public outwith the hours of 0900 to 2200..
(4) No gaming machines of any sort other than prize bingo and amusements-withprizes shall be installed within the premises without the prior written consent of the
planning authority.
(5) No games of a sessional nature shall take place at any time on the premises.
(6) The closed-back display windows (with external appearance as previously
approved by the planning authority according to drawing 95/043/04) shall at all times
contain a display of goods available for sale, by cash or by prize voucher, within the
premises or at shops in Airdrie town centre.
The foregoing decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply to
the Court of Session within 6 weeks from the date hereof as conferred by sections 231 and
233 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; on any such application the
Court may quash the decision if satisfied that it is not within the powers of the Act or that the
applicant's interests have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any
requirement of the Act or of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 or of any orders,
regulations or rules made under these Acts.
26.
This letter has been copied to North Lanarkshire Council as successor to Monklands
District Council.
27.
Yours faithfully
wrlH
PGbfrUfl)%1
W M H PATTERSON
Reporter
ppass29o.doc
7
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 1404
Tollgate House
Direct Line
Switchboard
HoultonStreet
FaxNo
BristoL
5529W
0117-987 8927
0117-987 8000
0117-9878139
1374-8927
GTN
E-mail [email protected]
93 Allison Street
BIRMINGHAM
B5 5TH
Your Ref
RGE/DLW/2
i%rRef:
T/APP/ U3935/A197/2850031P7
'qFEB
Om:
1S
Dear Sirs
APPEAL BY EDWARDS & BATES LIMITED
APPLICATION NO: T97.3I9/RJ
I have been appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
1.
the Regions to determine this appeal against the decision of the Swindon Borough Council
to refuse planning permission for the change of use to an amusement centre of the ground
floor, 56 Bridge Street, Swindon. I held a local inquiry into the appeal on 13 January 1998.
From the evidence given at the inquiry, the written representations made and my
inspection of the site and its surroundings, I consider that the principal issue in this appeal
is the impact of the proposal on the vitality of the Swindon town centre.
2.
The development plan includes the Swindon Central Area Local Plan (SCALP),
adopted in 1983. This locates the appeal property within the Main Shopping Area (MSA),
where Policy 58 permits banks, building societies and betting shops to replace retail uses at
sweet level, providing that, amongst other matters, there would be no concentration of nonretail uses. The Council confirmed that the reference to this policy in its refusal notice was
an error, and that the relevant policy was 59. This says that other non-retail uses will not
be permitted in ground floor premises in the MSA, but under Policy 510 this restriction does
not extend to restaurants and other places of refreshment.
3.
The Inspector's report into the Thamesdown Local Plan has been received and the
Council has resolved to publish modifications incorporating her recommendations. The
property is within both the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) and the more extensive Central
Shopping Area (CSA). Modified Policies TS4 and 5 would permit development for uses in
Classes A2 and A3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 within the
PSA subject to provisos designed to protect the overall retail function of the particular
frontage and of the PSA. At the inquiry, the Council accepted that Policy TSÔC, referred
to in its decision, was not relevant to this appeal as it only applies to those parts of the CSA
which are outside the PSA. I have given weight to the emerging Local Plan in accordance
with paragraph 48 of Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 1 "General Policy and Principles".
4.
The appeal relates to a former shoe shop close to the northern end of the
pedestrianised section of Bridge Street, some 25 metres from its junction with Fleet Street,
which here forms the boundary of the PSA. Bridge Street and Regent Street. which it
continues, run through the centre of the shopping centre of Swindon. The Council is actively
promoting the centre by such measures as refurbishing groups of shopsr repaviqg.jnd the
5.
-tn E. tecu it
,'tcIcJ Pipcr
t
t'
-itt-v in tire
Dejilifui err I u/I/i
-
Er
trot '?ten
',
ill
V/it
it tinti [itt'
Re it
itt, curd rite WeLt/i Of/ice
granting of planning permissions for new retail development. It intends to extend the
pedesthanised area on to Fleet Street. The shopping centre as a whole appears buoyant, with
the property being one of the few vacant premises within it. Uses within the immediate
vicinity are mixed; there are some Class A2 premises and a number of former shops have
recently been opened as public houses or restaurants, while others are currently being
converted to these uses. Evidence of pedestrian flows and rental levels collected before a
nearby supermarket closed show that activity at this end of Bridge Street is less than
elsewhere in the PSA. I formed the impression that this section of the street is becoming
characterised by uses ancillary to the retail function of the rest of the PSA.
You accepted that the proposal would contravene Policy 59 of the SCALP in that it
6.
would constitute a non-retail use not permitted under other policies. Weight has to be given
to this policy as part of the development plan but relevant national planning guidance is more
recent. PPGI says that the government's objectives include sustaining and enhancing the
vitality and viability of town centres and the provision of a wide range of shops and services.
This advice is amplified in PPG6 "Town Centres and Retail Development" which, while
recognising that retailing should continue to underpin town centres, seeks to encourage the
vitality of town centres and the diversity of uses within them by retaining and promoting
complementary uses. PPG6 also addresses the need to support the "evening economy".
Specific advice on the location of amusement centres is given in Annex D to the note. This
says that they are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas or in areas of mixed
commercial development and are unlikely to be acceptable in primary shopping areas.
7.
Despite the provisions of the development plan, the Council is applying a more liberal
policy framework to certain uses within the town centre and it has granted planning
permissions for non-retail uses within former shops. I find that this approach, embodied in
the emerging Local Plan, accords with the thrust of recent national guidance. At the inquiry
the Council conceded that, although it still protects the retail function of the PSA, non-retail
uses can be acceptable within it. it agreed that your clients' proposal is not contrary to the
emerging Local Plan which, unlike the development plan, has no policies to prevent uses
other than those in classes Al, A2 or A.3 from locating in the PSA. In recognition that the
town centre has lacked class A3 premises, it has sought to increase the services to shoppers
and to support the evening economy by accepting the principle of their presence throughout
the PSA. Until relatively recently few such facilities had been provided but now a number
have located on the section of Bridge Street around the appeal property.
The Council agreed that, even though the proposal conflicts with the development
8.
plan, it is still necessary to demonstrate that harm would be caused, and that the test of such
harm to the PSA is whether shoppers would be attracted to the amusement centre. Your
clients would operate a centre containing only "amusement with prizes" machines intended
to attract shoppers, where legal restrictions would prevent entry by persons under 18. This
use contrasts with premises containing "amusement only' machines, generally used by
younger people. Differing evidence was given on the nature of the clientele of your clients'
existing amusement centre at 35 Regent Street. You said that its customers tended to be
female shoppers, while the Council's survey showed that they were mainly young men. My
own observations of these premises at different times during the day bear out the Council's
views on the composition of the clientele. However, your evidence, based on interviews
rather than observations, showed that a significant proportion of customers had visited, or
intended to visit, shops in the town centre. This finding is similar to the results ot other
surveys in different parts of the country and I see no reason why customers of the proposed
centre should not exhibit similar characteristics. Moreover, the operators of shops close to
your clients' other premises have experienced no problems or adverse effect on trade arising
from their presence. In myjudgement. therefore, shoppers would be attracted to the proposal
and there would be a functional link between it and the retail uses in the town centre. Even
-7-
though some customers would be likely to visit the amusement centre only, I consider that
theft presence in the vicinity would still add to the relatively low levels of activity of this part
of the town centre, thereby increasing its vitality.
The thrust of PPGÔ is that the shopping function of town centres should be supported.
9.
Appropriate non-retail uses can contribute to the diversity and vitality of such areas. I am
satisfied from the evidence given that numbers of customers attracted to such amusement
centres can be similar to those who use shops. Indeed, they can be more than those visiting
some shops or financial service uses and the Council accepted that the numbers of pedestrians
generated by the Regent Street premises were high. You have referred to several appeal
decisions where this type of use was found to be appropriately located in shopping centres
in various parts of the country in that it had a clear ancillary relationship with the retail
function of each centre. Moreover, as there are no amusement centres in this part of the
PSA. I consider that the proposal would increase the diversity of this part of the town centre
in accordance with advice in PPGÔ. I find that it would be ancillary, rather than harmful,
to the shopping function of the town centre. I consider that the proposal would be as
complementary to the PSA, and as acceptable within it, as are many uses within classes Al
and A3. In my judgement, despite the advice in PPG6 that amusement centres should be
sited away from main shopping areas, the type of centre proposed by your clients would be
appropriate in this location.
The Council conceded that, if benefits to the town centre could be shown, it would
be justifiable to allow this appeal. I consider that the proposal's conthbution to the diversity
and vitality of the town centre would also be present during the evening, when it would then
be ancillary to the refreshment uses in the vicinity. Many of these premises do not open
before 1100 hours and in my view this reduces the vitality of this end of Bridge Street at
these times. However, your clients intend to open at 0900 hours and in my view the levels
of activity in the area, and hence the vitality of this part of the town centre at this time would
thereby increase. Moreover, a retail shop window is proposed, and I consider that this would
be beneficial to the character and appearance of the immediate area, particularly compared
with the dead frontages which can be associated with some forms of retail uses and other uses
acceptable in the town centre under the Council's policies. In my judgement the proposal
would bring positive benefits to this part of the town centre.
10.
The Council argued that there was a requirement for additional retail floorspace,
pointing to the projected growth of Swindon. However, the Local Plan Inspector found that
existing commitments were more than adequate to meet this demand, and I do not consider
it necessary to reserve this small amount of floorspace to accommodate further demand for
shopping floorspace. You said that the use must be located in the PSA where pedestrian
flows were greatest, but r am not convinced by this argument, and I note that your clients
operate similar premises at Market Street. where pedestrian flows are low. The Council
expressed willingness to consider alternative sites outside the PSA. even though they would
be contrary to Policy TS6C of the emerging Local Plan, but they conceded that arguments
as to the suitability of other locations need not be addressed if the appeal property is found
to be a suitable location for the proposed use.
11.
Although the proposal would not conflict with any of the policies of the emerging
Local Plan, it would breach Policy S9 of the development plan and advice in Annex P. of
PPG6. However, I consider that the absence of harm to the town centre and the positive
contribution which would be made to the diversity and vitality of this part of the centre would
be sufficient to outweigh these matters and would enable the proposai to accord with the
objectives of both the development plan and the emerging Local Plan. I therefore conclude
that the proposal would have a beneficial impact on the vitality of the Swindon town centre.
I find it acceptable and I shall allow the appeal.
12.
-3-
Both parties agreed a list of suggested conditions which superseded those they had
submitted individually. I agree that it is necessary to control the type of machines installed
to ensure that the use of the premises is appropriate in the PSA and that soundproofmg should
be installed to protect both the occupiers of adjacent buildings and the character of the
immediate area. I also consider that a retail display should be provided in the shop windows
to avoid an impression of dead frontage and to this end I shall enable the Council to control
its nature. You considered that a condition to prevent the use of the premises for the playing
of sessional games, as had been imposed on the planning permission for the Regent Street
premises, was unnecessary as the floor area was too small to enable such games to be played.
However, I saw that both premises were of similar size and I shall therefore impose the same
condition. Both parties considered that a restriction of the hours of opening was not justified;
in view of the presence of nearby businesses which remain open into the late evening and the
absence of nearby residential uses I agree that such a restriction is not required.
13.
You argued that the proposal would enable a vacant unit to be occupied and this would
enhance the appearance of the area. I note that your clients' contract with the landowners
has effectively caused the premises to remain disused for a year but, in view of the relatively
rapid occupation of premises which were vacant when the application was submitted, in my
opinion the appeal property would not have remained vacant for a long period. However,
as I have found that the proposal would be acceptable in any event, I have given lithe weight
to this argument. I have taken into account all the matters raised at the inquiry and in the
written representations, including the proximity of another amusement centre and concerns
that the proposal could attract young people to gather outside the premises. However, neither
of these matters, nor any of the other matters raised, is sufficient to outweigh the conclusions
which have led to my decision.
14.
15.
appeal and grant planning permission for the change of use to an amusement centre of the
ground floor, 56 Bridge Street, Swiridon in accordance with the terms of the application
(197.319/RI) dated 4 March 1997 and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following
conditions:
the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five
years from the date of this permission;
1.
the amusement machines installed in the premises shall be restricted to
amusement with prizes machines only;
2.
3.
no games of a sessional character shall be played on the premises;
the use hereby permitted shall not begin until the premises have been
soundproofed in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been submitted to
and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall provide
for the fitting of self-closing entrance and exit doors;
4.
the shop window of the premises shall at all times have a display of retail
5.
goods available for sale within the premises, in accordance with details which shall
have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before
the use hereby permitted begins.
16.
-4-
17.
18.
enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than Section 57 of the Town and Counti-y
Planning Act 1990.
Yours faithfully
Antony Fussey JP BSC(Hons) DipTP MJtTPI
Inspector
t
Appeal Decision
th
Inquiry held on6 October 2004, followed by a site visit
on the same day
by Roy Foster
Terripe Quay House
2TheSquae
BhstolBSiPN
1 DII? 3726372
ist&
an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State
Dale
0 OCT 2004
Appeal Ref: APPIKO42S/A/04/1140620
3, 4 & 5 Oxford Street, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP11 20G
• The appeal Is made by National Leisure Ltd under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
The appS concerns the decision of Wycombe District Council to refuse planning permission for the
change of use of the ground floor of No 3 and the first floors of Nos 3, 4 & 5 to an amusement
centre.
The applicañon [ref 03/08078] was dated 13 November 2003 and reffised by notice dated 30
January 2004.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject
•
..
to conditions set out below in the formal decision.
Main issues
1.
From all that T have read, seen and heard it is. clear that the main issues in this case are
whether or not the proposal would (1) have a harmful impact on the retail vitality of the
town centre and/or (2) fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the High
Wycombe Conservation Area.
Impact on the retail vitality of the town centre
2.
3.
4.
The appeal site comprises a vaeant former shoe shop occupyingthe ground floor of No 3
and the first floors of Nos 3, 4 and 5. These preSses are in the "primary shopping
frontage" of the town centre as defined in the Wycombe District Local Plan, adopted in
January 2004. Policy S3 of the plan aims to prevent changes of use from retailing at
buildings in such areas. The appeal proposal does not direetly meet any of the possible
exceptions discussed in criteria (a) to (c) of the policy and is therefore in conflict with it.
In policy terms it is also necessary to consider the proposal against Annex D to Planning
Policy Guidance 6: Town Centres and Retail Development (PPG6) which states that
amusement centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping centres, or in areas
of mixed commercial development.
Against these policy statements the appellants put forward a number of material
considerations vhich in their view supported the appeal. Firstly, it is clear that the
FrogmoorfOxford Street area is regarded in the local plan (para 6.51) as a "food and drink
focus" where policy 53 can be relaxed to allow the further development of the emerging
concentration of A3 uses, intended to complement the existing and future retail areas in the
High Street/Octagon and Western Sector respectively. This suggests that retention of Al
retail use is not regarded as an over-riding priority in this area, albeit that the specific
intention of the policy is to make room for morç AS uses.
Appeal Decision APP/K0425/A10411 140620
5.
Secondly, survey evidence was produced concerning the use patterns of nearly 40 other
amusement centres similar to that proposed. Such centres provide only amusement-withprizes machines and non-sessional prize bingo and have a statutory obligation to exclude
under 18g. They exclude amusement-only machines of the type designed to appeal to a
more youthfiul clientele such as video and arcade games and pin tables. The surveyed
examples indicate that the majority (usually in the region of. two-thirds) of customers
isitir.ig the proposed type of centre do so in the course of a trip primarily intended for
shopping purposes. Even in the cases of those .whose primary motivation was to visit the
amusement centre the majority also engaged in some shopping. In addition, the surveyed
customer profiles were generally skewed towards females in the mature age groups (3 5+).
The Council's evidence aild presentation did not seem to demonstrate an understanding of
the distinction between the typical patronage of this type of centre and that more usually
associated with a• seaside amusement arcade. Their views, and those of the neighbouring
trader (Oxfani), sometimes suggested fear of antisocial behaviour associated with the
premises yet it is clear that many police fOrces are prepared to state that such centres are not
generally associated with issues of law and order. In my view there is. no reason to suppose
that an amusement centre of the kind proposed here would not appeal to a cross-section of
the adult shopping population and complement local shopping facilities arid activities.
.
6.
Thirdly, evidence was presented of daytime customer flows generated by 38 amusement
centres surveyed at dates between 1987 and 2000. Numbers entering the centre were
compared with those entering between 3 and 5 premises of similar size in the same
frontage. In 14 cases the centre was the most-visited establishment of the group while in 20
of the other 24 cases .the centre received 65% or more of the number of visitors to the mostvisited establishment. Evidence from surveys of traders near to 3 amusement centres
indicates that none had detected any detriment to trade. While most had not detected any
difference, a small number had experienced a benefit.
7.
Fourthly, it was explained that Shipleys Amusement Centres retain a window display of
priced retail goods, mainly china and glass, and that the retail counter typically contributes
around 10% (and even up to 28%) of turnover. Surveys of public reaction to these displays
were undertaken near 13 amusement centres in 1997-2001. Of 100 interviewees in every
case only a minority (between 17% and. 28%) considered the window displays "less
interesting" than those of other businesses nearby. Clear majorities found them "more
interesting" or "as interesting". Although in this case the Council felt that the enclosed
window display adopted to prevent the centre presenting a wholly "dead" frontage would be
introverted, contrived, static, and "tacky" I do not consider it reasonable to criticise the
likely window display as being wholly outside the prevailing range in the town since retail
establishments in High Wycombe, as elsewhere, adopt a wide variety of "open" and
"enclosed" treatments and fashions in window display.
8.
Pffihly, since High Wycombe currently lacks an amusement centre of this type it was
submitted that the proposal would provide a commercial leisure use of the type which
policy RT4 seeks to encourage within the town centre. It was explained that a failed former
amusement establishment in a secondary area in Bridge Street was of a different type
primarily aimed at younger clients.
9.
In the light of all the above I consider that the proposal would complement, rather than
damage, the retail vitality of High Wycombe Town Centre and would not undermine the
aims of the local plan in that respect. Referring to the advice in Annex I) of PPG6,having
2
Appeal Decision APP/K0425/A10411 140620
inspected the secondary shopping frontages defined in the local plan I do not consider that
an alternative location in these- streets would be able to achieve the high degree of
coinpiementarity with other town centre activities or be anywhere near as attractive to the
shopping public that the amusement centre seeks to eater for.
evidence was given at the inquiry about the Council's plans for the Western
Sector development, together with the creation of a "destination loop" that could include the
Frogmore area, it appears that legal agreements still have to• be completed for the Stannifer
scheme while other possible development on the other side of Oxford Road is still in the
early stages of discussion. Even though there may be a substantial pent-up demand for new
retail space in the town, the very large size of these developments (compared with the
current total retail floor-space in High Wycombe) would bring consequent, possibly quite
large, shifts in the centre of retail gravity if they came to fruition. It is by no means certain
what effects this may have on pedestrian flows and shop occupancy patterns in the
FrogmorefOxford Street/Bull Lane area. However, in view of the general distribution of
retail activity which I observed.- and which is mapped at RHI - I do not consider that the
appeal premises are at the very heart of the retail centre of gravity of High Wycombe. Nor
do I find reason to conclude that they are likely to be any closer if the planned
developments take place, or that a "harder" approach to the loss of Al units is thereby
justified.
10. Although
conclusion is that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the present or
future attractiveness of the town centre as a place to shop, and thus its retail vitality, and the
appeal should not be dismissed on that ground.
11. My overall
Character or appearance of the Conservation Area
the appeal premises are not within High Wycombe Conservation Area they are
closely associated with it insofar as the boundary approaches from the west along the line of
Oxford Street, -including all the buildings on the north of the road, and then turns south
down the eastern side of No3 'along Bull Lane.
12. Although
appellants intend to install a new shop front it was broadly acknowledged that it falls
within the Council's powers of control to ensure that thedesign and materials of the ground
such as to preserve or enhance the appearance of the
floor elevations of No 3 would
Conservation Area. The Council's main concern on this issue was that the appellants'
original set of indicative floor plans would inevitably result in the first floor windows at
Nos 3, 4 and S providing the appearance of a totally void use, contrary to 'its past actions
and continuing 'aspirations to secure obviously-active use of upper floors, in the town centre.
13. As the
b
14.
I have sympathy with 'this aim, which reflects Government concerns to encourage urban
renaissance initiatives. However, the appellants have shown how their original indicative
first floor plans can be modified to provide more obviously active use behind 4 of the 7
windows on the main Oxford Street frontage and are prepared to accept a condition
requiring a scheme to be submitted indicating how the upper floor windows will be 'treated.
In my view there is still scope for increasing the appearance of active use as compared with
the second indicative arrangement. Bearing in mind the reasonable limits of planning
control over such matters I consider that 'this approach (together with a similar condition
covering the ground floor window display and another requiring the provision of a new
shopfront) would provide the Council with the opportunity to ensure that the comprehensive
refhrbishment of the property complies with policies G3, HE3 and HEll of the local plan.
3
Appeal Decision APP/K04251A104/l 140620
&
In these ways the property's contribution to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area would, at the least, be preserved as compared with the 'current simation
in which there is an outworn ground floor shopfront and main first floor front. windows that
only partly served the former actively-used areas while others were painted-out.
Conclusion
that the appeal should be' allowed. I will impose conditions covering the gist of
the matters suggested by the Council together with other requirements discussed at the
inquiry and above, including the prior installation of a• new shop-front and the treatment of
the ground and first floor windows:. I will also restrict the activities to those specified since
this is important to the distinction made between the type of amusement centre proposed
and the types of amusement "arcades" catering for other sectors of the market and more
commonly. associated with seaside locations and resort towns. Finally, I will ensure that the
Council has control over the details of ventilation and sound-proofing in the interests of
users and neighbours of the building and the town centre generally.
15. I conclude
Formal Decision
16. 1 allow the' appeal, and grant planning permission for the change of use of the ground floor
at No 3 and the first floor at Nos 3, 4 and S Oxford Street, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP1 I
2DG in accordance with the terms of the application, [ref 03/OSO7SIFUL] dated 13
November 2003 and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions:
The developmeifl hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of five years
1)
from the date of this decision.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The use hereby permitted shall be restricted only to the playing of amusement-withprizes machines, non-sessional prize-bingo, and ancillary retail sales and catering.
Before the commencement of the use hereby permitted a new shop-front shall be
installed in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Before the commencement of the use hereby permitted a display of priced goods for
sale from the premises shall be provided in the ground floor windows and a display
of such goods shall thereafter be permaqently retained in these windows.
Before the commencement of the use hereby permitted the first floor windows to the
premises shall be treated in accordance with a scheme to, provide visual interest that
shall first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and
the windows shall' thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the
approved scheme.
Before the commencement of the use hereby, permitted the premises shall be treated
which. shall
in accordance with soundproofing and ventilation schemes, the details of
and the
Authority
first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
unless the
premises shill thereafter be ràtained in accordance with these schemes
departure.
for
any
obtained
prior written consent of the Authority is
INSPECTOR
4
Appeal Decision APPJKO425IAIO4/l 140620
APPEARANCES
FOil TIlE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Saira Kabir Sheikh, of Counsel
She called
- instructed by the District Solicitor
BSc DipTP MRTPI, Town Planning
Neil Cottrell
Manager, Daly International
Maflin Andrew MA MIPhil MRTPI II3BC, Conservation
and Urban Design Manager, Wycombe DC
Charles Broclclehurst BSc FRICS
FOR TIlE APPELLANT:
Richard Phillips QC
He called
- instructed by Roger Etchells, Chartered Surveyors
Roger Etchells Dip LA FRICS
INTERESTED PERSONS;
Oxfam Property Dept, do Oxfam Shop, 4 Oxford St,
High Wycombe, Bucks
Scope Charity Shop, 9 Oxford St, High Wycombe,
Bucks
Smart Smith
Sarah Wick
DOCUMENTS
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Document
Ii
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
List of persons present at the inquiry
Letter from the Council notifying local people of the inquiry
Mr Cottrell's proof including bound appendices
lvii Cottrell' s rebuttal proof
Mr Andrew's proof
Mr Brocklehurst's proof including bound appendices
Mr Etchells' s proof
Mr Etchells's bound appendices REI-18
Mi Etchells's appendix REI9
Bundle of fbrther decision letters concerning sites in Dartford, Dunstable,
Cowley, and North Shields
High Wycombe Conservation Area Character Survey
PLANS
Plan
Plan
Plan.
Plan
Plan
Site plan
487/04 -. indicative ground floor layout
487/05 - indicative first floor layout
Indicative layout of the Western Sector development
E Indicative sketch of the possible removal of the Oxford Road roundabout
A
B
C
D
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photos 1-3 Bundle of photographs of internal scenes in Shipleys Amusement Centres
5
/ /
1/
The PIannLrg Inspectorate
Appeal Decision
BrjsJoJ 552
inquiry held on 23 November 1999
by 'slnrtiii Afl(lI'CWS
9W
01179878927
MA BSc(Ecnn) D1pTP(Dist) MRTPI
An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions
C
DEc
1
99
Appeal: T/APPJJ 17251A199/10258551P7
• The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
failure to determine an application for planning permission within the prescribed period.
The appeal is brought by Kingston Leisure against Gosport Borough Council.
The site is located at 68 High Street, Gosport.
The application (ref K5 173/2), is dated 5 May 1999.
The development proposed is a change of use from a beauty salon to an amusement centre.
•
•
•
•
Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions set
out in the schedule below.
Procedural matters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The inquiry sat on 23 November 1999 and my site inspection was carried out on that day.
At the inquiry an application for a full award of costs against Gosport Borough Council was
made on behalf of the appellants. This is the subject of a separate decision.
Although the existing use of the appeal premises is referred to on the planning application
form as a beauty salon, the ground floor is a Class Al shop with a beauty salon as an
ancillary first floor use.
The Council rethsed a duplicate application on 18 August 1999. The refusal reasons form
the basis of the Council's case in this appeal.
The appeal premises lie within the High Street Conservation Area which was extended to
include the eastern end of the High Street in 1990.
The main issues
6.
The main issues are, having regard to the prevailing policies:
a) the effect of the proposed change
centre, and
of use on the vitality and viability of Gosport town
b) whether the proposed use would lead to an increased need to travel.
Planning policy
7.
The development plan includes the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 1995 and the appeal site is
located within the High Street 'Principal Shopping Area' as identified on the Proposals
Map. Policy 82 applies to development within the Principal Shopping Areas and gives
favourable consideration to Class A uses at ground floor level subject to certain criteria.
Paragraphs 3.5, 3.6 and 3.19 of the Local Plan in essence indicate the acceptability of nonshopping uses in a shopping centre provided proposals meet the criteria in Policy S2, the
APPEAL DECISION
centre's thnction is not harmed and its general shopping characteristics and a balance with
shopping uses are maintained.
Policy BE9 states that favourable consideration will be given to the change of use of a
building within a conservation area provided the use preserves or enhances the area's
character or appearance.
National policy guidance relevant to the appeal is in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)
No. 6: 'Town Centres and Retail Developments'. Annex D refers specifically to amusement
8.
9.
centres.
Inspector's reasons
Effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre
10..
The Council's essential concern is to ensure that the attraction of the town centre is not
undermined by the loss of shops to other uses. They point out that Gosport faces
competition from the much larger nearby centres of Fareham and Portsmouth, Furthermore
the town centre is at a geographical disadvantage in that its location, at the end of a
peninsula, restricts its accessibility both to local residents and, in particular, to visitors from
a wider area.
my inspection of the town centre I formed the view that notwithstanding these
perceived disadvantages, the High Street is a successfiul shopping centre. The inquiry day
coincided with one of the twice-weekly markets in the High Street and this would no doubt
have increased the number of shoppers. However the shops are located in an attractive and
well-established pedestrian precinct and are interspersed with a variety of other uses
including a church and community centre, the Town Hall and library. The centre has good
access from extensive areas of free public car parking. My impression of the general
buoyancy of the centre is confirmed by the low and falling number of vacancies reported in
the 1998 Hillier Parker Retail Study for Gosport.
II. From
shopping area is in linear form and the appeal premises are close to its eastern
end. However there is no evidence of a concentration of 'fringe' or more marginal uses
often associated with the periphery of shopping centres. Indeed the opposite is the case with
several leading national multiples located in the immediate vicinity. This part of the High
Street clearly benefits from the 'footfall' generated by the close proximity of the bus station
and the pedestrian ferry to Portsmouth.
12. The main
judgement this locational and commercial context is important to the consideration of
the loss of a retail unit as proposed in the appeal scheme. Even if the loss of a Class Al use
was considered to be harmful in principle, I consider that in practice any adverse effect
would be very slight. The loss of a small shop would raise the proportion of non-shopping
frontage in the centre by just 0.3% to 35% and the proportion of non-retail uses would still
be below the national average. In my opinion this would not have any discernible effect on
the buoyancy or vitality of the centre. In relation to its location I do not consider that the
loss of this shop would result in fewer people in this part of the High Street or dissuade
shoppers from walking further along the precinct in either direction.
13. In my
Al use to an amusement
centre might in itself cause harm. However there was substantial evidence to the inquiry
that the particular type of establishment envisaged in the appeal would in fact be an added
14. My observations above presuppose that the change from a Class
APPEAL DECISION
attraction to the facilities of the centre. The appellants referred to a large number of appeal
decisions in other centres in which Inspectors have accepted this to be the case.
15.
Surveys of similar establishments elsewhere in the country also show that customers
represent a cross-section of adults and that visits to this type of amusement centre and
shopping are complementary activities with many people visiting both kinds of premises.
Further surveys illustrate that amusement centres often attract more customers than some
shops and generally more than other non-retail uses. At the inquiry the Council did not
essentially dispute the validity of these surveys. Moreover a voucher system is proposed
whereby patrons can effectively spend their winnings in nearby participating shops. Taking
these factors together I consider that a strong case has been made that the proposed
amusement premises have the potential to provide a fillip to retail trading and thereby
enhance, rather than detract from, the vitality and viability of the shopping centre.
of the Council is that through an unimaginative window display an
amusement centre can have a 'dulling impact' on the Street scene, resulting in a loss of
vitality. The existing premises at No. 47 High Street were cited as an example, Whilst I
recognise this as a valid cause of concern, I do not consider that this would necessarily
follow if permission for the proposed change of use were to be granted. Indeed the intention
in this case is to have a display of priced goods in the window and the retention of such a
display could be ensured by the imposition of a condition on the permission.
16. A further concern
17.
Whilst the display envisaged by the appellants may be of less interest than that of some
shops, equally I consider that it would be of greater interest to passers-by than the limited
appeal of some of the existing displays of shops and service uses in Gosport High Street.
The appellants have also referred to survey evidence that the public's perception is that
amusement centre window displays compare favourably with those of some other Class A
uses.
their evidence to the inquiry the Council claimed support for their case through the
advice in PPG6. They referred in particular to Annex D which states that amusement
centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas and are unlikely to be
acceptable in primary shopping areas. However Gosport town centre is characterised by a
wide range of mixed uses alongside the larger shops and has a more limited catchment area
than that of Fareham and Portsmouth. I do not therefore equate the 'Principal Shopping
Area' in the Local Plan with the concept of a primary shopping area in PPG6, which with its
reference to secondary shopping areas adopts an approach not used in the Local Plan.
18. In
19.
Irrespective of the precise meaning of 'amusement centres' in Annex D, in my view the
PPG's guidance in paragraph 2.12 on the need for a diversity of use in town centres is more
appropriate in this case. It is also consistent with the flexible approach adopted by the
Council in the relevant paragraphs in the Local Plan and the application of the criteria of
Policy 52.
20. My conclusion on the first issue is that the proposed change of use would not conflict with
Policy S2 and the general policy approach of the Gosport Local Plan and would not have
any adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre. I also find that the
proposal would be in accordance with the thrust of government advice on town centres in
PPG6.
t
1
1
I
3
APPEAL DECISION
Effect on the need to travel
21.
The Council has made specific reference to this issue in their second reason for reffisal of
the duplicate application. However I have concluded in respect of the first issue that the
proposed change of use would not harm the vitality or viability of the town centre. It
follows that there would not be any increase in the need for people to travel to alternative
centres for a variety of goods and services. I therefore find that the proposal would not be
contrary to government policies aimed at achieving a more sustainable pattern of
development.
Effect on the conservation area
72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires
development proposals to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing
the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy BE9 of the Local Plan has the
same requirement. In respect of appearance, the change of use would, in itself have no
effect subject to the provision of a window display. A replacement shopfront would require
a separate application that would be considered on its merits by the Council, but from the
evidence to the inquiry in respect of the particular type of premises envisaged I can see rio
reason to anticipate any difficulties in this regard. I conclude from the evidence before me
that the appeal proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the High Street
Conservation Area.
22. Section
Conditions
of conditions if the appeal is allowed. I agree that
conditions restricting the opening hours and the nature of activities in the premises are
consistent with the appellants' description of the proposal and are necessary to protect the
amenities of the area, including the living conditions of any nearby residents. However I
consider an 0900 hours opening time suggested by the appellants to be more appropriate
than the 0700 hours referred to by the Council. Conditions requiring the prior installation of
a new shop front and a window display of goods for sale are needed to maintain the vitality
of this part of the High Street and the character and appearance of the conservation area.
However I see no reason for a condition requiring implementation in accordance with the
submitted plans as the Council already has adequate powers in respect of non-compliance. I
have modified the format and wording of the Council's suggested conditions where
necessary for purposes of clarity and brevity.
23. The Council has suggested a number
Other matters
24. I have considered all the other matters raised including the evidence to the inquiry of the
Gosport Town Centre Association and the Gosport Society. However none of the
considerations raised are sufficient to outweigh my conclusions on the main issues.
Conclusion
25. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed and I shall exercise
the powers transferred to me accordingly.
1
k
L
APPEAL DECISION
Informatives
26. This decision only grants permission under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990. It does not give any other approval Or consent that might be required.
27. The conditions imposed on this permission include a requirement for ifirther matters to be
agreed by the local planning authority. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if
it refuses any such application, fails to give a decision within the prescribed period, or
grants a conditional approval.
28. The developer's attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 74 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires consent to be obtained prior to
the demolition of buildings in a conservation area (as defined in Circular 14/87).
29. The developer's attention is drawn to the enclosed note relating to the requirements of the
Building Regulations 1991 with respect to access for disabled people.
MARTIN ANDREWS
Schedule:
Appeal: T/APP/J1725/A/99/1025855/P7
The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for a change of use from a Class Al
shop and ancillary beauty salon to an amusement centre in accordance with the terms of the
application No: K5173/2 dated 5 May 1999, and the plan submitted therewith, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) the development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of five years from the date
of this decision;
(ii) the use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 0900
hours to 2200 hours;
(iii) the premises shall be used only for the playing of amusement-with-prizes machines and for
ancillary retail sales; no games of a sessional nature shall be played on the premises;
(iv) no sound amplifying equipment, which is audible outside the premises, shall be installed in the
premises without the consent in writing of the local planning authority;
(v) before the use commences, the building shall be sound insulated and fitted with self-closing
doors in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the local planning authority. The doors of
the premises shall remain closed other than for the normal process of entry and exit;
(vi) before the use hereby permitted commences a priced display of goods for sale shall be provided
in the shop windows of the premises and this shall thereafter be maintained;
(vii) the use hereby permitted shall not begin until a new shopfront has been installed in accordance
with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
APPEAL DECISJON
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Instructed by Roger Etchells & Company, 93 Ailison Street, Digbeth,
Birmingham B5 5TH.
Mr S Phillips OC
He called
Address as above.
Mr R Etchells DipLA FRICS
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORiTY:
Mr T Ward of Counsel
J Bowles, Borough Secretary and Solicitor1 Gosport
Borough Council, Town Hall, High Street1 Gosport, Hampshire P012 IEB.
Instructed by Mr
He called
Mr S Salmon BTP
Senior Planning Officer, Gosporl Borough Council.
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councilior K Searie
Mayor and Chairman of Economic Development1 Gosport Borough Council.
Councillor
Chairman of Health and Leisure Committee, Gosport Borough Council.
Mr
L
D
Wright
Chairman, Gosport Town Centre Association, do Boots the Chemists, 109
High Street Gosport P012 IDIJ.
Rutter
Mrs L Burton
Chairman, Gosport Society, 106 Jellicoe Avenue, Aiverstoke,
P012 2FF.
Gosport
DOCUMENTS
Document
1
Document
2
Council's letter of notification of the inquiry and list of persons noUfled.
Document
3
Letter of representaUon.
Document
4
Appendices RE1
Document
5
Appendices
Document
6
Appeal decision letter ref. T/APPN43OS/N9312206871P5.
Document
7
Decision Nofice of permission, ref. K795212, for 47 High Street, Gosport.
1
-
RE21 to Mr Etchell's proof of evidence.
—6 to Mr Salmon's
proof of evidence.
PLANS
Plan
ApplicaUon plan: Locaon plan at scale 1:1000
A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo
1
Premises in Cosham and Portsmouth owned and operated by the appellants.
6
I
The Planning Inspeclorate
Appeal Decision
BhstoI 982 9DJ
01179878927
inquiry held on 23 November 1999
try
\lartin
.An(IFc\Vs \1\ BSc(Econ) DIpTP(Disl) MRTPI
An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions
1 DEc
99
Appeal: T/APP/J 1725/A/99/10258551P7
• The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
failure to determine an application for planning permission within the prescribed period.
The appeal is brought by Kingston Leisure against Gosport Borough Council.
The site is located at 68 Fligh Street, Gosport.
The application (ref: KS 173/2), is dated S May 1999.
The development proposed is a change of use from a beauty salon to an amusement centre.
•
•
•
•
Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions set
out in the schedule below.
Procedural matters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The inquiry sat on 23 November 1999 and my site inspection was carried out on that day.
At the inquiry an application for a frill award of costs against Gosport Borough Council was
made on behalf of the appellants. This is the subject of a separate decision.
Although the existing use of the appeal premises is referred to on the planning application
form as a beauty salon, the ground floor is a Class Al shop with a beauty salon as an
ancillary first floor use.
The Council refused a duplicate application on
the basis of the Council's case in this appeal.
18
August 1999. The refusal reasons form
The appeal premises lie within the High Street Conservation Area which was extended to
include the eastern end of the High Street in 1990.
The main issues
6.
The main issues are, having regard to the prevailing policies:
a) the effect of the proposed change
centre, and
of use on the vitality and viability of Gosport town
b) whether the proposed use would lead to an increased need to travel.
Planning policy
7.
The development plan includes the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 1995 and the appeal site is
located within the High Street 'Principal Shopping Area' as identified on the Proposals
Map. Policy 52 applies to development within the Principal Shopping Areas and gives
favourable consideration to Class A uses at ground floor level subject to certain criteria.
Paragraphs 3.5, 3.6 and 3.19 of the Local Plan in essence indicate the acceptability of nonshopping uses in a shopping centre provided proposals meet the criteria in Policy S2, the
APPEAL DECISION
centre's function is not harmed and its general shopping characteristics and a balance with
shopping uses are maintained.
8.
Policy BE9 states that favourable consideration will be given to the change of use of a
building within a conservation area provided the use preserves or enhances the area's
character or appearance.
9.
National policy guidance relevant to the appeal is in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)
No. 6: 'Town Centres and Retail Developments'. Annex D refers specifically to amusement
centres.
Inspector's reasons
Effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre
10.
The Council's essential concern is to ensure that the attraction of the town centre is not
undermined by the loss of shops to other uses. They point out that Gosport faces
competition from the much larger nearby centres of Fareham and Portsmouth. Furthermore
the town centre is at a geographical disadvantage in that its location, at the end of a
peninsula, restricts its accessibility both to local residents and, in particular, to visitors from
a wider area.
1.
From my inspection of the town centre I formed the view that notwithstanding these
perceived disadvantages, the High Street is a successful shopping centre. The inquiry day
coincided with one of the twice-weekly markets in the High Street and this would no doubt
have increased the number of shoppers. However the shops are located in an attractive and
well-established pedestrian precinct and are interspersed with a variety of other uses
including a church and community centre, the Town Hall and library. The centre has good
access from extensive areas of free public car parking. My impression of the general
buoyancy of the centre is confirmed by the low and falling number of vacancies reported in
the 1998 Hillier Parker Retail Study for Gosport.
form and the appeal premises are close to its eastern
of a concentration of 'fringe' or more marginal uses
often associated with the periphery of shopping centres. Indeed the opposite is the case with
several leading national multiples located in the immediate vicinity. This part of the High
Street clearly benefits from the 'footfall' generated by the close proximity of the bus station
and the pedestrian ferry to Portsmouth.
12. The main shopping area is in linear
end. However there is no evidence
judgement this locational and commercial context is important to the consideration of
the loss of a retail unit as proposed in the appeal scheme. Even if the loss of a Class Al use
was considered to be harmful in principle, I consider that in practice any adverse effect
would be very slight. The loss of a small shop would raise the proportion of non-shopping
frontage in the centre by just 0.3% to 35% and the proportion of non-retail uses would still
be below the national average. In my opinion this would not have any discernible effect on
the buoyancy or vitality of the centre. In relation to its location I do not consider that the
loss of this shop would result in fewer people in this part of the High Street or dissuade
shoppers from walking further along the precinct in either direction.
13. Tn my
Al use to an amusement
substantial
evidence to the inquiry
centre might in itself cause harm. However there was
that the particular type of establishment envisaged in the appeal would in fact be an added
14. My observations above presuppose that the change from a Class
APPEAL DECISION
attraction to the facilities of the centre. The appellants referred to a large number of appeal
decisions in other centres in which Inspectors have accepted this to be the case.
15.
Surveys of similar establishments elsewhere in the country also show that customers
represent a cross-section of adults and that visits to this type of amusement centre and
shopping are complementary activities with many people visiting both kinds of premises.
Further surveys illustrate that amusement centres often attract more customers than some
shops and generally more than other non-retail uses. At the inquiry the Council did not
essentially dispute the validity of these surveys. Moreover a voucher system is proposed
whereby patrons can effectively spend their winnings in nearby participating shops. Taking
these factors together I consider that a strong case has been made that the proposed
amusement premises have the potential to provide a fillip to retail trading and thereby
enhance, rather than detract from, the vitality and viability of the shopping centre.
further concern of the Council is that through an unimaginative window display an
amusement centre can have a 'dulling impact' on the Street scene, resulting in a loss of
vitality. The existing premises at No. 47 High Street were cited as an example. Whilst I
recognise this as a valid cause of concern, I do not consider that this would necessarily
follow if permission for the proposed change of use were to be granted. Indeed the intention
in this case is to have a display of priced goods in the window and the retention of such a
display could be ensured by the imposition of a condition on the permission.
16. A
17.
Whilst the display envisaged by the appellants may be of less interest than that of some
shops, equally I consider that it would be of greater interest to passers-by than the limited
appeal of some of the existing displays of shops and service uses in Gosport High Street.
The appellants have also referred to survey evidence that the public's perception is that
amusement centre window displays compare favourably with those of some other Class A
uses.
their evidence to the inquiry the Council claimed support for their case through the
advice in PPG6. They referred in particular to Annex D which states that amusement
centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas and are unlikely to be
acceptable in primary shopping areas. However Gosport town centre is characterised by a
wide range of mixed uses alongside the larger shops and has a more limited catchment area
than that of Fareham and Portsmouth. I do not therefore equate the 'Principal Shopping
Area' in the Local Plan with the concept of a primary shopping area in PPG6, which with its
reference to secondary shopping areas adopts an approach not used in the Local Plan.
18. In
19.
Irrespective of the precise meaning of 'amusement centres' in Annex D, in my view the
PPG's guidance in paragraph 2.12 on the need for a diversity of use in town centres is more
appropriate in this case. It is also consistent with the flexible approach adopted by the
Council in the relevant paragraphs in the Local Plan and the application of the criteria of
Policy 52.
of use would not conflict with
Policy 52 and the general policy approach of the Gosport Local Plan and would not have
any adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre. I also find that the
proposal would be in accordance with the thrust of government advice on town centres in
PPG6.
20. My conclusion on the first issue is that the proposed change
3
APPEAL DECISION
Effect on the need to travel
21.
The Council has made specific reference to this issue in their second reason for refusal of
the duplicate application. However I have concluded in respect of the first issue that the
proposed change of use would not harm the vitality or viability of the town centre. It
follows that there would not be any increase in the need for people to travel to alternative
centres for a variety of goods and services. I therefore find that the proposal would not be
contrary to government policies aimed at achieving a more sustainable pattern of
development.
Effect on the conservation area
720) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires
development proposals to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing
22. Section
the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy BE9 of the Local Plan has the
same requirement. In respect of appearance, the change of use would, in itself, have no
effect subject to the provision of a window display. A replacement shopfront would require
a separate application that would be considered on its merits by the Council, but from the
evidence to the inquiry in respect of the particular type of premises envisaged I can see no
reason to anticipate any difficulties in this regard. I conclude from the evidence before me
that the appeal proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the High Street
Conservation Area,
Conditions
23.
The Council has suggested a number of conditions if the appeal is allowed. I agree that
conditions restricting the opening hours and the nature of activities in the premises are
consistent with the appellants' description of the proposal and are necessary to protect the
amenities of the area, including the living conditions of any nearby residents. However I
consider an 0900 hours opening time suggested by the appellants to be more appropriate
than the 0700 hours referred to by the Council. Conditions requiring the prior installation of
a new shop front and a window display of goods for sale are needed to maintain the vitality
of this part of the High Street and the character and appearance of the conservation area.
However I see no reason for a condition requiring implementation in accordance with the
submitted plans as the Council already has adequate powers in respect of non-compliance. I
have modified the format and wording of the Council's suggested conditions where
necessary for purposes of clarity and brevity.
Other matters
24. I have considered all the other matters raised including the evidence to the inquiry
of the
Gosport Town Centre Association and the Gosport Society. However none of the
considerations raised are sufficient to outweigh my conclusions on the main issues.
Conclusion
25. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed and I shall exercise
the powers transferred to me accordingly.
APPEAL DECISION
Informatives
26. This decision only grants permission under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990. It does not give any other approval or consent that might be required.
to be
27. The conditions imposed on this permission include a requirement for further matters
if
State
of
agreed by the local planning authority, There is a right of appeal to the Secretary
it refuses any such application, fails to give a decision within the prescribed period, or
grants a conditional approval.
(Listed
28. The developer's attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 74 of the Planning
prior
to
obtained
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires consent to be
the demolition of buildings in a conservation area (as defined in Circular 1 4/87).
29. The developer's attention is drawn to the enclosed note relating to the requirements
Building Regulations 1991 with respect to access for disabled people.
of the
MARTIN ANDREWS
ScheduJe:
Appeal: TIAPP/J1725/A/99/10258551P7
The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for a change of use from a Class Al
shop and ancillary beauty salon to an amusement centre in accordance with the terms of the
application No: K517312 dated 5 May 1999, and the plan submitted therewith, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) the development hereby permitted shall begin before the expintion of five years from the date
of this decision;
(ii) the use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 0900
hours to 2200 hours;
(iii) the premises shall be used only for the playing of amusement-with-prizes machines and for
ancillary retail sales; no games of a sessional nature shall be played on the premises:
(iv) no sound arnpli'ing equipment, which is audible outside the premises, shall be installed in the
premises without the consent in writing of the local planning authority;
(v) before the use commences, the building shall be sound insulated and fitted with self-closing
doors in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the local planning authority. The doors of
the premises shall remain closed other than for the normal process of entry and exit;
(vi) before the use hereby permitted commences a priced display of goods for sale shall be provided
in the shop windows of the premises and this shall thereafter be maintained;
(vii) the use hereby permitted shall not begin until a new shopfront has been installed in accordance
with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
APPEAL DECISJON
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Instructed by Roger Etchells & Company, 93 PJlison Street, Digbeth,
Birmingham B5 5TH.
Mr R Phillips QC
He called
Address as above.
Mr R Etchells DipLA FRICS
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUThORiTY:
Instructed by Mr J Bowles, Borough Secretary and Solicitor, Gosport
Borough,Couhcil, Town Hall, High Street, Gosport, Hampshire P012 lEG.
Mr T Ward of Counsel
He called
Senior Planning Officer, Gospod Borough Council.
Mr R Salmon BTP
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mayor and Chairman of Economic Development, Gosport Borough Council.
Councillor K Seae
Councillor
D
Chairman of Health and Leisure Committee1 Gosport Borough Council,
Wght
Mr L Rutter
Chairman, Gosport Town Centre Association, do Boots the Chemists, 109
High Street, Gosport P012 1DU.
Mrs L Burton
Chairman, Gosport Society, 106 Jellicoe Avenue, Aiverstoke, Gosport
P012 2PF.
DOCUMENTS
Document
I
Document
2
Council's letter of notification of the inquiry and list of persons noilfied.
Document
3
Letter of representaüon.
Document
4
Appendices REI
Document
5
Appendices
Document
6
Appeal decision letter ref. T/APPN43OS/N93/220687/P5.
Document
7
Decision NoUce of permission, ref. 1(7952/2, for 47 High Street, Gosport.
1
-
RE2I to Mr Etchell's proof of evidence.
—6 to Mr Salmon's proof of evidence.
PLANS
Plan
Applicaion plan: LocaUon plan at scale 1:1000
A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo
1
Premises in Cosham and Portsmouth owned and operated by the appellants.
6

CPj2W7/0737 / COt.)

Transcription

Similar documents

Infographie EN

Ordering ISPLS Apparel through Lands` End Business Outfitters

Retail Leasing Opportunity

DATEA Centre Management

porstmouth – unit 23, cascades shopping centre

list

Town Center at Sterling

Westfield University Town Center - UTC Ice Rink

Candinas Plans

HAIRHOUSE WAREHOUSE