Page 1 of 9

Committee Date: 15/05/2014 Application Number: 2014/00420/PA

Accepted: 31/03/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 26/05/2014

Ward: Nechells

76 Wrentham Street, Unit 3, Birmingham, B5 6QP

Change of use to a Sheesha Lounge and the retention of a single storey forward extension with an amended design Applicant: Mr Fazal Zaman

243 Heather Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 9BE Agent: Masood Akhtar Associates

65-67 Whitmore Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 0NR

Recommendation Refuse 1. Proposal 1.1. This application proposes the change of use of a single storey former garage from a

hand car wash to a Sheesha Lounge (Sui Generis) and the retention (with changes) of a large single storey structure. The site recently gained planning approval for the change of use to a coffee shop (A1) with ancillary external smoking area. No conditions have been discharged in relation to this consent.

1.2. The originally submitted floor plans show a large ‘smoking sheesha lounge area’ for 80 covers in place of the ancillary external smoking area previously approved. The coffee shop element is reduced in scale (by roughly 50%) although the plans suggest that this could still provide approximately 40 covers (although the submitted layout only shows 12). This reduction allows the ‘snack kitchen area’ and service areas to be expanded in comparison to the previous plans. Externally there were to be no material alterations to the structure as built on site except the installation of a new slot in the roof provided to meet smoke free legislation.

1.3. The existing forward extension has been constructed of blockwork and timber and painted black.

1.4. Amended plans have been received which:

• divide the building into smoking and non-smoking ‘café’ areas, reducing the smoking lounge element.

• introduces a parapet wall above a new slot in the roof • amends the appearance of the building from Wrentham Street with the use of

brick cladding to the lower element, installation of brick piers, windows and render to the upper part of the structure.

1.5. Proposed opening hours remain as previously approved 10:00 to 23:00 Monday to

Saturday and 11:00 to 22:30 Sundays and Bank Holidays. The applicant has

Page 2 of 9

verbally confirmed that he is willing to limit opening until 19:00 if this satisfies amenity concerns.

1.6. The previously permitted use of the property was within the A1 (retail) Use Class due to the lack of any substantial cooking facilities for hot food with beverages, snack foods, sandwiches, pastries and pies proposed.

1.7. I note that the supporting statement erroneously refers to the sheesha use as consented. This application has been received as part of ongoing Planning Enforcement investigations.

1.8. Since submission a Noise Report has been provided in support of this application.

Proposed Elevations Proposed Plans

2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site consists of a forecourt with single storage garage with a black

palisade fence to the frontage onto Wrentham Street. There is a car repair garage adjacent to the site on the west/north and a Caribbean takeaway adjacent to the east. In the wider area there is a mixture of uses including residential on the opposite side of the street to the south, a Karaoke bar to the southwest, two night clubs on the opposite side of Sherlock Street to the east and a hotel to the rear fronting Lower Essex Street.

Location

Street View

3. Planning History 3.1. 28.10.2004 – Approve (temporary one year) – 2004/05167/PA – Retention of

premises for the purpose of motor vehicle valeting 3.2. 06.02.2013 – Approved subject to conditions - 2012/07623/PA - Change of use from

car wash (Sui Generis) to coffee shop (A1), installation of new shop front and erection of smoking shelters

3.3. 20131262/ENF – Current Enforcement Case - Development not in accordance with

the approved plans - Ref: 2012/07623/PA 4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Transportation Development – No objection subject to cycle storage being provided

and that any consent is on a temporary basis in order to monitor the impact upon the highway network.

4.2. Regulatory Services – Recommend refusal. Consider that the proposed use is likely

to generate an unreasonable level of noise and disturbance from comings and goings which will adversely affect the amenity of nearby occupiers. These concerns cannot be overcome through the imposition of conditions.

Page 3 of 9

4.3. Southside Business Improvement District – Notes that the application is retrospective, the less than visually pleasing appearance of the extension and the fire risk presented by the combination of the materials and smoking use. They add that they work hard with BCC and stakeholders to regenerate this area and the current situation is unsightly and will cause annoyance to nearby residents and businesses alike. Finally it adds that instances of hate crime and anti-social behaviour have significantly increased in this immediate area since it opened.

4.4. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection (on the basis of adequate fire-fighting

access points and availability of water supplies). They have indicated that the structure has a high fire risk that could result in loss of life and can make comments once an application for building regulations consent has been made. They confirm that they can only take action under the Fire Safety Order when the premises are in use.

4.5. West Midlands Police – Object to the application. Notes the concerns raised by local

residents and local police teams. The business was noted as open by an officer on patrol and the number of vehicles parked on Wrentham Street was causing congestion. They note that the proposed use could increase the risk of road traffic collisions and the number of calls for the police due to anti-social behaviour. They note that existing shisha lounges have resulted in call for all of the emergency services with a number of serious offenses occurring. The site has been the subject of complaints to WMP in relation to parking issues, congestion and noise which can impact on the quality of lives of nearby residents.

4.6. Site notice posted and Neighbouring Occupiers, Ward Members and Residents’

Associations were consulted, with 3 responses from local occupiers received. Concerns raised include: • Lack of parking / highway matters • Noise from visitors late at night • Anti-social behaviour issues • Building does not comply with smoking law • No fire escape and poorly constructed • Have been fires in other shisha establishments • These establishments are not assisting the improvement and regeneration of the

area

4.7. Southacre Residents’ Association object on visual amenity and highway grounds and consider that the proposed use does not benefit the local community. The Residents’ Association have also submitted a petition containing 14 signatures from local residents objecting to the proposals on the basis of traffic problems, noise and anti-social behaviour.

4.8. Digbeth Residents’ Association object given the increased risk of anti-social

behaviour. 5. Policy Context 5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; Draft Birmingham Development Plan;

Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD; Places for All (2001) SPG and National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6. Planning Considerations

Page 4 of 9

6.1. Key material considerations for this application are the principle, amenity, design

and highway matters.

POLICY 6.2. Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 3.14 of the UDP require high quality design which is

responsive to its context and would not have a detrimental impact upon the quality of the built environment.

6.3. The overarching principle of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable

development. Paragraph 17 establishes the core planning principles with these broadly divided between social, environmental and economic impacts. Chapter 7 places good design at the heart of the NPPF’s definition of sustainable development.

PRINCIPLE

6.4. The site is in a mixed area that contains commercial uses (vehicle repair, hot food

takeaway, karaoke bar, hotel) and residential properties. 6.5. As with the previously permitted coffee shop, the proposed use would be consistent

with the aim of providing a diverse mixed use economy and would provide a more long term use than the previous car valeting operation.

6.6. However, there are fundamental issues inherent with the proposed use that bring

into question the acceptability of the principle of a Sheesha Lounge use in this location. These are explored below.

AMENITY

6.7. Regulatory Services recommend refusal on the basis that the Sheesha Lounge use

is likely to have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of occupiers within the vicinity due to the comings and goings of patrons. I concur with this conclusion.

6.8. Whilst the proposed operating hours remain unchanged, in comparison with the

previously approved coffee lounge the proposed use is likely to generate significant levels of activity into the evening. The use would also be likely to attract groups of people rather than individuals.

6.9. I acknowledge the presence of the karaoke bar on the opposite side of the street

(number 77). This purpose-built public house has been in use since the 1960’s and is set within its own grounds. The residential maisonettes opposite directly look onto the application site and are between 20m and 26m from the use.

6.10. There are other entertainment/leisure uses within the vicinity however these are

either of a different character/type of use (British Oak Public House, a small Victorian public house) or have better relationship with the nearest residential uses (Core/Boltz nightclubs).

6.11. In light of the proximity to residential properties and the direct line of sight between

them and the external areas, the previous consent was subject to a restrictive condition preventing the use of the external areas beyond 19:00 hours.

6.12. The reconfigured site could now accommodate a total of around 120 people at any

one time, with the new extension increasing the time when using this frontage area

Page 5 of 9

would be practical to use. The reliance upon the evening economy by such uses is also recognised. I therefore conclude that a condition further limiting the times when the lounge area could be used, as per the previous application, would not overcome the amenity impact of the proposal.

6.13. There would be a significant amenity impact from the comings and goings of patrons

to the business. The only public entrance to the building would be directly off Wrentham Street directly opposite the residential properties. This would be around only 20-26m from the front façade of the residential properties opposite. Vehicles dropping off patrons would be closer than this.

6.14. I therefore conclude that impact of the proposed sheesha lounge use on the amenity

of neighbouring properties would be unacceptable and cannot be overcome by conditions. I therefore recommend refusal on amenity grounds.

DESIGN

6.15. The application for the front extension is retrospective as this element is now

complete on site. In contrast with the previous approval the proposal presents a completely blank elevation to the street. This deadening of the street scene is unacceptable. Furthermore the extension has the appearance of a temporary structure with the design detracting from the visual amenity of the area.

6.16. The proposal to retain this structure is therefore wholly contrary to Chapter 7 of the

NPPF which requires good design and notes that this is a key aspect of sustainable development. In addition, the structure run counter to the requirement for good quality design that is responsive to context as outlined in the UDP.

6.17. In response to these concerns an amended design has been submitted. Whilst no

firm timetable for implementing these changes has been provided I concur that the most recently amended scheme (including windows providing views through) would be visually acceptable subject to suitable conditions controlling the quality of the materials. A condition could be attached requiring the remedial works within a period of time.

6.18. I therefore raise no objection on design grounds subject to the above.

HIGHWAY MATTERS 6.19. Transportation Development recommends only a temporary consent in order to

monitor the impact upon the highway network and the police have mentioned some parking issues. I concur with this conclusion and consider that this would provide an opportunity to effectively monitor the highway impact once the use is established. I therefore raise no highway-based objections subject to conditions. CRIME

6.20. West Midlands Police and local occupiers have raised the issues of crime and anti-social behaviour which can be a material planning consideration. I note the issues raised; however the majority of the issues raised are generic and relate to past experience of other shisha lounges. In order to sustain a reason for refusal the issues raised would need to be more specific to this application and proposal and incapable of being managed by conditions. I consider that conditions requiring adequate CCTV and lighting could be attached which would improve surveillance. I

Page 6 of 9

therefore do not consider that an objection on crime/fear of crime grounds could be sustained in this instance. SMOKE FREE LEGISLATION

6.21. In order to comply with the Smoke Free legislation structures are required to have a sufficient level of openness. Whilst this legislation is independent from planning legislation, Regulatory Services have confirmed that the currently proposed roof opening (both the design shown on the planning drawings and the design within the Noise Assessment) would not comply with this legislation.

7. Conclusion 7.1. I therefore consider that the principle of the proposed change of use is unacceptable

due to the impact upon residential amenity of nearby occupiers. Noise generated by comings and goings of a significant number of patrons into the evening would be disruptive and harmful to the existing standard of amenity enjoyed at these properties.

7.2. I therefore recommend that this application be refused. 8. Recommendation 8.1. Refusal for the following reason: Reason for Refusal 1 The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of

dwellings/premises in the vicinity by reason of noise and general disturbance from the operation of the use and the associated comings and goings to the site. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance Notes.

Case Officer: Nicholas Jackson

Page 7 of 9

Photo(s)

Figure 1. The Application Site

Page 8 of 9

Figure 2. Interior

Page 9 of 9

Location Plan

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

22

(PH)

Warehouse

39

Graphic House

80 to

82

Far East Building

Me

Works

1

Warehouse

Works

122 t0 138

White Swan

Works

Works

66 to

69

3465

Works

3132

54

76

78

149

74

Warehouse

70

72

138

30

125

HURST STREE

162

Works

El Sub Sta

105.2

BISH

OP

STRE

ET

TCB

105.2m

PH

Factory

Warehouse

127

to 1

3113

5

105.5m

142 to 154

105.5m

164

6765

42

71

69

Works

61 6

3

29 30

40

Works

75

LOW

ER ESSEX STREET

(PH)

TCB

52

36 6032

38

SHER

LOC

K S

TREE

T

12

VER

NO

LDS

CR

OFT

Depot

111.6m

1 to 12

109.1mWRENTHAM STREET

Tow

er

14 to 37

(PH)

British Oak

54

GO

OCH

STREET N

OR

TH

ACRE

AVE

NUE

2

14

Hig

hgat

e

ygro

und

VE

14

18 to 27

47

77H

ouse

59

80

Boots Bar

Works

Works

70 7

1

44 to 46

Works

40

34

45

32

Cha

rlbur

y

1 to 12

66

7714 to 37

Works

Works

HO