Agenda item

That the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses were detailed in the report.

The officer summarised the reasons for recommending approval of the application (subject to conditions) for amendments to a previously agreed scheme involving the addition of a microbrewery, internal changes, outside walls and a garage.  He drew attention to the objections raised by a local resident which were included in the late observations.

Mr. M. Davis spoke against the application on the following grounds: the reduced height of the wall on the road side, front west elevation to enable safe exit onto the main road; meeting parking policy requirements as there was capacity for a maximum of four cars on the south side and not eight as indicated in the Design Access Statement plus the three spaces at the front and side of the garage; additional parking capacity for the owners’ 6-8 vehicles and parking needs of customers; question over the erection of a garage as the previous owners had been refused planning permission due to the proximity to the bend in the road; concerns about possible permanent odour from the microbrewery onto Lime Street and noise pollution from the air conditioning units.  Mr. Davis also said that he had not been part of the consultation and that he supported the project reaching its conclusion, subject to these issues being addressed, given his concerns about health and safety on the site as he lived nearby.

Councillor M. Gittins of Llanfynydd Community Council also spoke against the application on the following grounds: lack of detail about assessment of parking capacity required to support the additional businesses and for residents, given the loss of parking spaces as part of the original application and the only available off-road parking on shared access with two other residences; whether an environmental impact assessment had been undertaken to determine noise and air quality impact from the microbrewery and refrigeration unit on surrounding areas; the past application refused by Welsh Government due to the lack of visibility from the access to be used for maintenance of the refrigeration unit; and the location and safety of the access which did not form part of the site visit by the Committee.

Councillor Roberts moved the officer recommendation for approval which was seconded.  He considered there to be no grounds for refusal, particularly in respect of the parking issues given the former use of the site as a public house.

Whilst agreeing with comments on the state of the site, Councillor Thomas also supported approval of the application.

Councillor Lloyd sought clarification on the proposed height of the wall and parking opposite the site as well as the business opening hours.  He also felt that if approved, the site should be monitored to assess noise and odour impact.

Councillor Butler referred to alternative parking nearby used during the site’s former use.  However, in response to the concerns raised, he sought views from the Highways officer on the viability of parking and asked for clarification on the loss of spaces mentioned by the third party speaker and on the garage permission.

Councillor Peers said that the adequacy of visibility splays could be addressed through a condition and that parking concerns should be considered to avoid vehicles being parked on the road near to the blind bend.

Councillor Richard Jones said that the proposed mixed use of the development should be welcomed and supported the application if the conditions addressed all the highway and public protection issues raised.  He felt that noise and odour concerns from the microbrewery could not be considered viable due to the former use as a public house.

In response to environmental concerns, the officer advised that Public Protection colleagues had no objections apart from a condition on submission of the extraction system.  The applicant had been told to lower the wall to 1m high, as agreed with Highways colleagues, and to remove a pillar to address visibility issues.  The officer provided clarification on the opening hours which were subject to a condition and the additional parking on the site as part of the application including that from the second garage which had been erected since the previous application.

The Highways officer confirmed the view that the 11 parking spaces were adequate to serve the development.

In advising the Committee, the Service Manager - Strategy reminded Members that consent had already been granted for mixed use of the site and that consideration of this application related to any impact from the proposed amendments.

Councillor Lloyd suggested that a condition be imposed for the applicant to lower the wall prior to any permission granted.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that this was not necessary as there was a condition for compliance with the application drawings on which the height of the wall was shown.

Councillor Richard Jones asked whether a Traffic Regulation Order condition could be imposed to reduce the risk of parking on the main road at the front of the site.  The Highways officer said that this was not required as parking provision was deemed to be sufficient.

In summing up, Councillor Roberts agreed with the officer’s view that the amendments in the application did not differ significantly from the previous consent and that the conditions dealt with the issues raised.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant permission, in accordance with the recommendation in the report of the Chief Officer, was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).