Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development presented the application for Change of use from vacant restaurant and takeaway (Sui Generis Use Class) to 24/7 Adult Gaming Centre (Sui Generis Use Class). She explained that:-

·         the applicant had lodged an appeal in December 2024 with the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination of this application within the statutory timeframe;

·         the appeal would now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate;

·         however, the Planning Committee was asked to consider what decision it would have made if it were still within its remit to determine the application; and

·         the Planning Committee’s views would be reflected in the council’s formal submissions to the Inspectorate.

 

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location plan;
• aerial views;
• view of rear of site in Acland Road;
• views to south west and north east in Acland Road;
• views of adjacent properties and of Sidwell Street;
• proposed ground floor plan & front elevation;
• proposal overview;
• key planning issues; and
• officer recommendation.

 

A Member enquired about the reasons for the statutory timeframe being missed; the Chair advised that team management issues would not be discussed at the present meeting.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         the three conditions suggested by Environmental Health were: restrictions around the hours of use, limitations during construction hours and additional noise insulation;

·         licensing matters such as opening hours could be considered by the Planning Committee if they were material to the application;

·         the Inspectorate would be assessing the application on the assumption of round-the-clock opening hours;

·         the licensing side of the project had already been heard by Exeter City Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee, which was a totally separate process;

·         she was unable to confirm if there would be public conveniences for users on site. As this was a change of use application, such information was not required;

·         there was a condition recommended in the report around the shop frontage;

·         while officers recognised the existence of a school and of places of worship in the vicinity of the site, the policy in place was about noise and general disturbance;

·         while it was noted that the applicant already ran a similar operation in another part of the city, conditions could be recommended that were specific to this unit;

·         all comments made and recorded at the present meeting would be sent to the Inspectorate.

 

Members expressed disappointment that no representatives for the applicant were in attendance.

 

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Palmer made the following points:-

·         the socio-economic makeup of Sidwell Street, in particular the index of deprivation, made the proposed location particularly inappropriate;

·         the Gambling Statement in Exeter’s Local Plan stated that such premises would not be permitted where they were in close proximity to schools, sixth form colleges, hostels or support services for vulnerable people or religious buildings;

·         evidence suggested that harmful gambling should be considered a public health issue because it was associated with harms to individuals, their families, close associates and wider society;

·         research from the University of Bristol had shown that, as of November 2020, 21% of gambling premises were based within the most deprived decile of areas in the country, compared to just 2% in the least deprived decile;

·         Exeter's own policy highlighted six Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) within the city which represented some of the most deprived areas in England (“very low deprivation”), affected by unemployment, low education, skills and training, low income and poor health and disability. All six of the LSOAs fell within the 20% of most deprived areas in England, with Sidwell Street falling within the 10% of most deprived areas in England;

·         no key partners such as CoLab or the YMCA had been consulted;

·         there were 15 different hostels within a ten-minute walk of the site;

·         the nearby mosque alone attracted 2,000 worshippers (and Islam specifically forbade gambling);

·         the applicant disingenuously compared the proposal to an amusement arcade;

·         the applicant was currently under investigation by the Gambling Commission;

·         the NPPF recommended ‘active frontages’;

·         local residents had the right to live without fear of crime;

·         the noise report submitted had been light on detail; and

·         she disagreed with the “benefits” to Sidwell Street referred to in the officer report.

 

Other areas of concern raised by Councillor Palmer included:-

·         the safety of lone women using the premises (both as customers and as staff members);

·         the lack of public transport provision around Sidwell street after a certain time; and

·         the risk of having clusters of ‘unhealthy’ businesses.

 

Finally, Councillor Palmer recommended that, should the application be approved, the following conditions be imposed:-

1.    extensive sound proofing for residents living above the premises;

2.    additional safety measures to protect staff and lone visitors to the site assured safe travel home for female staff working late in the evening;

3.    given the concerns around anti-social behaviour and noise, additional security to be in place at all times;

4.    provision of customer facilities, in particular late at night when no public facilities are open;

5.    an attractive frontage (i.e. not blacked out) that supports a vibrant regenerated street;

6.    that consideration is given to external lighting, ensuring the premises is well lit up that does not cause disturbance to residents living above and nearby; and

7.    that the Council is satisfied that the applicant abides by the requirement to pay staff the minimum wage.

 

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Palmer made the following

further comments:-

·         she was aware that some of the point she had raised were not the remit of the Planning Committee but she nevertheless felt that these issues ought to be brought up in the public domain;

·         gambling was potentially a public safety issue;

·         it would not take much for Sidwell Street to ‘erupt’;

·         an employer paying less than the minimum wage represented a danger to health within local communities; and

·         a mural would be a better option than either a blacked out frontage or an open frontage.

 

The Chair clarified that:-

·         the nature and/or reputation of the applicant was totally irrelevant to the Planning Committee; and

·         only the views of statutory consultees had to be sought and it was not standard practice for ECC to proactively approach local organisations or charities that were not statutory consultees, although such organisations were obviously welcome to make representations.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following concluding points:-

·         Members must consider what their decision would have been had the application not been appealed for non-determination;

·         in reaching a decision, Members needed to make a balanced planning consideration;

·         Members should not duplicate factors covered by other forms of legislation, however passionately they might feel about certain issues;

·         the fact that the application would now be determined by the Planning Inspectorate, it was even more important for Members to act reasonably in putting forward evidence to the Inspectorate.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

 

Councillor M Mitchell:-

·         expressed frustration that non-determination had resulted in the decision-making being entirely in the hands of the Inspectorate;

·         highlighted the difficulty of weighing up the Committee’s approach in reporting to the Inspectorate;

·         wondered if, while the proposal was for a legitimate business use, Sidwell Street was really the best location for it rather than e.g. Princesshay or the Guildhall Shopping Centre;

·         reminded Members of the high deprivation of Sidwell Street, where the pharmacy was also a methadone dispensary;

·         was opposed to the proposed business being set up at this particular premises; and

·         agreed with the conditions recommended by Councillor Palmer.

 

Councillor Patrick:-

·         expressed concern about noise and anti-social behaviour;

·         favoured blacked-out shop window over visible slot machines; and

·         categorically disapproved of the business being open 24/7.

 

Councillor Jobson:-

·         reassured officers that she was considering the application as if it was not going to appeal;

·         felt that the demographic of Sidwell Street was precisely why the applicant had chosen this specific location;

·         recommended that any approval be subject to the most stringent conditions around noise;

·         agreed with the conditions recommended by Councillor Palmer and would like to see an additional condition around the premises having male, female and accessible toilets;

·         favoured a tasteful mural over a blacked out shop front;

·         stressed that it must be made clear that Acland Road can only be used as an emergency exit and not to let customers in; and

·         was against the proposal on balance.

 

Councillor Ketchin:-

·         reminded Members that, if they were minded to recommend refusal, they would have to provide reasons for it; and

·         regretted the fact that Exeter City Council did not have a policy on gambling like it did on prostitution.

 

Councillor Rolstone:-

·         made specific reference to Sidwell Street being an area of multiple deprivation;

·         agreed with the points made by Councillor Palmer around proximity to places of worship and opening times outside public transport hours; and

·         highlighted the importance of the policy framework around healthy neighbourhoods.

 

Councillor Knott:-

·         felt that the issue of opening hours was best left to Licensing;

·         agreed that noise mitigation must be conditioned, specifically soundproofing;

·         preferred a blank frontage with no advertising or branding whatsoever; and

·         would recommend approval but with firm conditions.

 

The Planning Solicitor suggested that, in terms of a recommendation, the wording could be:-

 

The Chair moved, and Councillor Patrick seconded, that the Planning Committee approve the following procedure:-

1-    indicative vote on the proposed change of use;

2-    discussion; and

3-    if appropriate, identifying clear material grounds for opposing the change of use.

 

On a vote, this was CARRIED.

 

Having taken an indicative vote on the proposal, Members OPPOSED the change of use.

 

The Strategic Director for Place asked Members to formulate their grounds for refusal. Reasons put forward by Members included:-

·         the need for healthy communities;

·         the need to stop the proliferation of similar facilities within walking distance;

·         proximity to places of worship;

·         the high number of schoolchildren walking past the premises;

·         how approving the proposal would undermine the good work that ECC is trying to do in the area; and

·         national guidance on balance.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – (DM) City Development read out the supporting text on gambling and clarified that the reasons put forward to the Inspectorate could include:-

·         noise; and

·         general disturbance.

 

The Strategic Director for Place made the following points:-

·         he felt that that officers’ views had been misrepresented;

·         some of the issues brought up by Members were hard to evidence;

·         officers in the room were trying to advise on what would be acceptable in terms of grounds for refusal, so as to avoid costs to the Council; and

·         he suggested Members limit their reasons for refusal to those contained within the policy.

 

A Member suggested delegating to the Chair the approval of the report which would go to the Inspectorate.

 

Replying to another Member’s request to make reference to Sidwell Street being a high-crime area, the Strategic Director for Place explained that the Police had expressed no objection to the proposal and, consequently, including this as grounds for refusal would contradict the advice received.

 

The Chair proposed, and Councillor Patrick seconded, the following recommendations:-

 

1-    That officers prepare and submit an appeal statement outlining the Council’s position opposing the proposal on the basis of:-

·      policy S6;

·      general disturbance and proximity to such buildings as local churches and schools; and

2-    That the approval of the appeal statement be delegated to the Head of City Development, in agreement with the Chair of the Planning Committee.

 

On a vote, the recommendations were CARRIED.