Agenda item

Modification of pergola and continued use of external area for customer seating used in connection with the Boulevard Restaurant.

Permit

Mr Mew presented the report to Committee. He provided a verbal update on Condition 2 and explained that in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of the report the wording of the condition would be amended to the following; …amended to the extent shown on the permitted plans.

Mr Mew highlighted the site location and confirmed it was with the settlement boundary of Selsey but outside the conservation area.

He showed the Committee some images of the area being used as the outside seating area and the structure in place.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that planning permission on the site had been granted in 1994 for amendments to New Parade, the route for vehicular movement, and a change of use to car parking. Mr Mew highlighted that there were no conditions on the permission that required the area set aside for parking to be maintained in perpetuity, meaning it could be lost at a future date with no control from planning. He highlighted the area of parking to the rear of the site which was controlled by S106.

Mr Mew showed the proposed modifications to the unauthorised existing pergola. He informed the Committee there had been a recent refusal on site, the application being considered sought to address the reasons for refusal on the previous application.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Andrew Brown – Selsey Town Council Parish Representative

Mr Steven Boulcott – Objector

Mr Matthew Pickup – Agent

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of parking provision; Mr Brown acknowledged that the local provision was slightly less than what would normally be required, however, the site was in a sustainable location and when considered in balance was deemed acceptable. With regards to inappropriate parking on the B2145, he explained there were mechanisms in place to manage this; in addition, a Section 137 could also be applied for.

In response to concerns raised regarding the loss of parking; Mrs Golding reiterated the advice given by officers. She reminded the Committee that the parking spaces were not restricted in anyway within the planning unit. The area was ancillary to the planning unit, and it was acceptable for it to be used for tables and chairs. The Planning Committee were being asked to consider the structure and not the use, the issue of parking had nothing to do with the application. In addition, Ms Stevens explained that refusing the application due to the loss of parking would not be acceptable as there was no requirement for parking to be retained.

With regards to the impact on local amenity; Ms Stevens confirmed that officers had considered the comment made by WSCC Highways as part of their response. However, it was officer opinion that the site was in a sustainable location and there would be no grounds for a refusal due to impacting amenity or highway safety.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit, subject to the following conditions and informatives.

Resolved; permit, subject to the following conditions and informatives.

*members took a five-minute break