Monday, 30 July 2012

Licensing and planning update

A quick round-up of information about the many and various planning and licensing cases that are brewing along at the moment:

  1. Redland police station school site.  This is going to the planning committee on the 6th August.  I am happy with the school design itself, but I still have issues with the road safety around the school.  There are lots of negotiations going on around this, so hopefully I will be able to withdraw the objection that I've made.  In essence, I've been fighting for a zebra crossing on Elgin Park, a safe drop-off zone for those few parents who will drive, some form of one-way system for 'The Shrubberies' and measures to make walking to the school safer and more pleasant.
  2. Old ABC cinema.  I'm happy to report that the old cinema on Whiteladies Road will not be becoming flats and a gym after the planning committee unanimously rejected the latest in a long line of planning applications.  There are now two groups trying to bring this building back into arts/cultural use and this has to be a better option for the community.  Of course, this isn't salient to the planning application, which I opposed on the basis of parking impact, ugliness and noise for the residents (who would be right above a noisy gym).
  3. Former Maskreys shop on Whiteladies Road.  The planning application for this is now in (12/02407/F) and you can see my detailed objection on the Council's website.  In brief, I am objecting on the basis of overintensification (too many flats in a small space) and especially that some of that space will be very noisy due to Sloanes bar beneath.  While this is currently closed, it could reopen at any time with its 2am licence - not a great place to house people!  I'm also worried about parking and waste management.
  4. 60 Ravenswood Road.  This is a small site, but it's quite amusing that this is either the third or fourth application (12/02916/F) for the site in the last year or so - the developer obviously thinks the residents will get bored with objecting sooner or later!  It's a back garden site and it's basically inappropriate for the small house that's planned for it.  I will be objecting again and I'm getting to know some of the residents nearby very well indeed...
  5. Bargain Beers, Zetland Road.  This is a slightly quirky application for a 24hr alcohol delivery service running out of the corner shop.  I've objected on the basis that (a) it'll be noisy for those living nearby, with car doors slamming and engines revving up all night, and (b) I can't see how they'll adequately enforce child protection rules.  Interestingly, the Police made very similar points.  The hearing is on 2nd August.  My over-riding feeling on this one is that the business model is flawed, so it's unlikely to happen even if it gets approved.
  6. Nisa, Chandos Road.  The hearing for this one is 16th August.  It's to have a 24hr alcohol and late night food licence for a supermarket in the middle of a highly residential area.  It's one of the most ludicrous applications I've ever seen and there have been over 100 objections, I believe.  The Police have objected strongly due to the clear scope for nuisance and disorder.
  7. I think that about covers it, but I've probably forgotten one or two!

    UPDATE (30th July): Of course, I did forget one and probably the biggest one...

  8. Costa.  A joint independent inquiry was held over two days last week combining the pending planning appeals over both the Gloucester Road and Whiteladies Road branches.  The former was denied planning permission twice for the conversion from office use to cafe use while the latter is the subject of an enforcement case about the number of tables and chairs allowed, having been denied permission for the numbers that are now in there.  My colleagues Anthony Negus (other Cotham councillor) and Fi Hance (Redland councillor) gave evidence in person (I was away in London) and kudos is due to them for waiting something like four hours to do so!  The result is expected in about six weeks, once the inspector has written their report.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The former was recommended for approval by the council's own planning team. The councillors ignored legal planning advice from planning professional employed for just such a purpose, thinking their opinion actually matters. Same at the appeal hearing, their comments/opinion count for absolutely nothing; this was and remains a legal matter. Tick tock…

Rick said...

The appeal was allowed on the Gloucester road site, I haven't heard about the other one. Makes you wonder why we bother to have local development plans.

Neil Harrison said...

Anon - I've lost count of the wrong-headed planning applications that I and local residents have managed to fend off in various ways, so you're demonstrably wrong. It doesn't always work in the face of big business legal clout, but I'm still well in the black at the moment.

Rick - both appeals granted, sadly. I am disappointed about this, especially with regard to Whiteladies, which I thought was the stronger case. I have very low regard for the planning inspectors, especially when you look at the simple factual errors that they make. My favourite one was where they miscounted the number of floors in a building. Overpaid and under-skilled buffoons for the most part.