Agenda item

Minor alterations to existing elevations and minor reconfiguration of car park (Amended Plans received which include omission of previously proposed single-storey extension).

Recommendation: Approval

-        RESOLVED: That the application was approved.

Minor alterations to existing elevations and minor reconfiguration of car park (Amended Plans received which include omission of previously proposed single-storey extension).

Officers introduced the report, which sought full planning permission for minor external alterations to The Case is Altered Public House. These alterations were primarily related to internal reconfiguration works associated with the desire to improve accessibility and provide increased capacity within the building.

An application for Listed Building Consent had been submitted in parallel with this application, and was Item 7 on the agenda. As such, the Chairman confirmed that these items would be discussed concurrently.

Members noted the addendum, with comments from The Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote Local History Society, the Eastcote Residents' Association and the Eastcote Conservation Panel.

A petitioner in objection to the application confirmed that he believed the proposed increase in drinking area was excessive. Parking was already a concern to local residents, and more people would exacerbate the issue, as well as creating more noise disturbance and a loss of amenity to the local residents. The local residents supported the pub and agree it is an important part of the community and conservation area, but the effect on the residential area was unsustainable and the latest proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.

The Chairman of the Eastcote Conservation Panel then addressed the Committee, citing the large increase in patrons visiting the pub and its impact upon the traffic flow and parking as reasons for objection. Members heard that the carpark was not sufficient for the number of customers already, and its impact on residents would only get worse with the new proposal. There were concerns that the floor area within the bar would be too crowded for wheelchair access, and the single disabled parking space was a substantial distance from the building. Furthermore, the garden bar would lead to noise disturbances that would adversely affect the local residents.

The Committee then heard from the agent for the application, who confirmed that the proposals were internal and the increase in covers at the venue was not a planning issue. There were also extensive pre-application discussions between the applicant and the Council with the intention of retaining the historic fabric of the building. The agent confirmed that the pub did not propose to use the rear garden for customers, it was solely to serve alcohol. Members heard that the internal alterations were a reorganisation, and not an increase in drinking area, and the applicant would be happy to move the disabled bay closer to the building entrance is needed.

Upon questioning from the Committee, the applicant clarified that the garden bar would be used to serve bottles from a kiosk to customers, but it would not be open to the public for any other purpose.

Cllr Haggar, Ward Councillor for Eastcote and East Ruislip, stated that although officers and the property owners tried to reach a suitable compromise, residents and the local community must be taken into account and there were concerns regarding the garden bar area, car parking and increased local traffic, and an increase in anti-social behaviour such as noise and litter which would all impact upon local amenity.

Members were supportive of the pub and recognised it was important to the local community, but were concerned about the impact of the proposed changes on residents. The Committee questioned whether the area was viable for a further increase in traffic and car parking, but Officers confirmed that the proposal provided a revised parking plan which satisfied the parking requirements for the additional 14 covers.

Councillors confirmed that the internal reorganisation did not need planning consent, and while they were sympathetic to the local residents, there was not a viable planning reason to overturn the officer's recommendation.

The Committee commented that with the garden bar serving bottles, it was important for proper recycling facilities to be available, and confirmed that if approved, they would like a condition to ensure this.

Members moved the officer's recommendation, with the additional condition requesting a litter and waste management plan. The motion was seconded, and upon being put to a vote, was approved with four votes in favour, two against, and one abstention.

-        RESOLVED: That the application was approved, with additional condition requiring a waste management plan.