Planning Report for Committee Meeting 17 July 2018
1, Co-op TWO ADDITIONAL TRADING UNITS ON EXISTING CAR PARK – VET and FAST-FOOD
We have been notified that the Co-op has withdrawn an application following numerous representations and objections. However, the scheme may be re- submitted with revisions at a later date.
2. Nationwide Building Society Long Street Atherstone.
We were consulted with regard to new facia signage to the frontage and returning around the corner. An objection was submitted objecting to the continuous panels above the existing window line which gave the appearance of visually splitting the existing frontage in two. The existing letter signs are planted onto the brickwork and have lesser impact on the building as a whole. A revised detail has been submitted which the Civic society have been consulted.
3. THE ANGEL INN MARKET SQ. SIX ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS INTO THE CAR PARK
The scheme is centred around the building of six dwellings added onto the ones already approved within the Angel Inn Beer Garden and Pub Yard. The six houses will occupy the space claimed by Arragon Properties in the existing Sheepy Road car park. The application has been adjourned for further discussions.
ACS Comment: There may be an issue relating to the ownership of the part of the Sheepy Road car park.
4, DAW MILL.
While this is somewhat outside our remit it is very much of interest to some of our members and relevant. Harworth Estates have continued to use a breadth of legal channels.
Warwickshire County Council are now issuing an enforcement order against Harworth to get the site reinstated to ‘green belt’. However, they expect Harworth to make a further challenge.
5. PHOENIX HOUSE MARKET PLACE ATHERSTONE. CHANGE OF USE A2 – A3/A4
A planning application has been received for the Listed Building Consent for Change of Use from A2 (financial and professional services) to A3 (food and drink), A4 (drinking establishments) and A5 (hot food takeaway)
Atherstone Civic Society has no objection to the use of this premises as a bistro, though we would question how viable the use would be when there are a number of other cafes and licensed premises in the vicinity.
Our major concern would be the use of the premises as a hot-food takeaway which may be inappropriate for a Listed Building, especially when it is an element of a highly attractive and sensitive historic townscape within the Atherstone Conservation Area.
We have further concerns about the impact of the extractor outlet pipe on the south-west elevation of the building that would impact on views of this elevation from the entry between Nos 10 and 12 Church Street. We suggest that, if this extractor is essential to the running of the premises as a bistro, a less damaging solution is found before the Council makes a decision to approve this application.
We do agree that the large windows overlooking the square would provide a view which added to the ambiance of the interior and that, run as a bistro alone, it could be an asset to the town.
If the Council is minded to approve the Application, a further application for signage should follow. If so, please can you ensure that it is a painted sign externally lit which will comply with the Council’s Draft Shopfront Guidance and be appropriate for the historic setting.
WIDER PLANNING CONCERNS
ACS has concerns over two schemes at Warton. One, an outline application which was approved and a second outline which was refused or adjourned. The local opponents put forward some valid points which we think are were well founded.
The village representatives, accepted that the development would probably be inevitable but issues concerning traffic flow, access, accidents, parking and the proposed infrastructure and the effect on the ‘village’ as a whole were of great concern.
ACS feel that there should be a full disclosure of information well before meetings. It is felt that often consultees are given approval with just a note of ‘no objections’ but they should really be present so that their decision can be properly presented and if necessary challenged.
We feel that In the cases of larger developments, there should be the opportunity for counsel to make a case for opponents. It would have to be funded but there should be provision for this on application.