Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

The Jubilee, Balfour Street, York, YO26 4YU [20/01498/FUL]

Alterations and conversion of part of first floor and all of the roofspace of the public house building to 3no. self-contained apartments and retention of public house on ground floor and altered function room on first floor (resubmission). [Holgate Ward]

Minutes:

Members considered an application (resubmission) for the conversion of The Jubilee into three self-contained apartments, public house and function room with beer garden and residents parking on site.

 

Officers gave a presentation based upon slides on agenda pages 37 – 47 detailing existing and prospective site plans, floor plans and elevations.

 

In response to Members questions it was confirmed that:

·        A kitchen for the public house would not be included but there would be space for a kitchen or an area for a pool table dependant on what the prospective owner would prefer.

·        There would be allocated bin and bicycle storage for the public house, separate to residential.

·        The building being a non-designated Heritage Asset does not prevent internal works but should be a material consideration when assessing a new proposal.

·        In order for the applicant to resubmit at a later date, to convert the public house space to apartments, they would need to provide evidence of marketing at reasonable terms and conditions. It was however, outside the scope of the Planning Authority to put in place a condition that would prevent such a resubmission.

·        The sound-proofing condition needed to be extended to include the function room.

·        Residents of the self-contained apartments would have the right to complain if sound issues arose, however public protection were satisfied with the sound-proofing report.

·        Without on-site landlord accommodation, the public house would be run as a ‘lock-up pub’ and the license would have to reflect this.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 17:14 to 17:30]

 

Public Speakers

 

Sophie Howard spoke in objection to the application stating that The Jubilee was the only asset to the community in the neighbourhood. She expressed her concerns, explaining that reducing the size of the public house, the limit on live music due to addition of residential space, no landlord accommodation and no parking for staff would limit the viability of the public house as a functioning business. She added that there was community concern over the lack of an on-site landlord and in response to Member’s questions she offered alternate uses for the space. She felt that the renovation and running costs could be covered by community hub funding and a share scheme.

 

Nick Love, a CAMRA officer, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Love confirmed he had visited The Jubilee in its last month of trading in 2016 and he believed it would be a viable business outside of a public house franchise company, which charged unreasonable rents. He was concerned that the developer may attempt to alter the public house in its entirety to apartments following likely noise complaints from residents. Mr Love expressed some solutions, stating that a new covid-related community ownership funding whereby the government would match any raised funds (up to 250k) by the community, could be used to purchase The Jubilee and renovate in keeping with community values. In response to Member’s questions Mr Love referenced other communities that had successfully received community ownership Funding.

 

Luke Thompson, Chair of Leeman Road Resident’s Association, spoke in objection to the application referencing the community support from the previous application with approx. 1000 signatures. He highlighted how The Jubilee could become community owned through various charities, government grants and schemes. He added that the reduced space of the public house in the new application added to the already limited community space in the area. In response to Member’s questions he reiterated the options for community ownership and referenced The Golden Ball in York as a comparison for successful ownership.

 

Paul Crossman, Chair of the new Campaign for Pubs, spoke in objection to the application. He felt that the applicant did not understand the community asset and that minimal management and security of the now closed Jubilee had led to it being in further disrepair. He expressed concern over noise complaints from the proposed apartments leading to the pub and function room being closed. In response to Member’s questions he referenced his experience of reinstating public houses in the community and the need for the function room sizing to not be decreased. He noted that good quality landlord-manager accommodation was required to ensure viability and appeal to an experienced landlord/ manager.

 

Lawrence McNamara spoke in objection to the application, stating that he felt the applicant had no incentive to make the public house a viable business but rather a monetary incentive for it to become solely residential.

 

Shannon Edwards spoke in objection to the application stating that, as a locally listed community asset, removing the live-in landlord-manager function, reducing function room size and kitchen-pool area crossover would limit the business to solely a drinking space which was unsustainable. She also expressed concern over conscious neglect of the property as it stands, affecting the historical architecture.

 

Cllr Kallum Taylor spoke in objection to the application, he raised various concerns stating that he felt the public house was not being set-up as a viable business option with longevity and would ultimately fail leading to conversion of the entire building into residential. He supported the community share option and reiterated the need for a public house/ community space in the area as it was currently limited.

 

Richard Irving -spoke on behalf of the applicant-, in support of the application. He stated the applicant and planning inspector had created a comprehensive report addressing previous areas of concern leading to refusal of the earlier application. He reiterated that the applicant had adhered to the building retaining the public house aspect including function room and beer garden and he believed it to be compliant with the NPPF. He stated comprehensive marketing and the flexible kitchen option would lead to a viable business opportunity. In response to Member’s questions, he was unable to offer guidance on the applicant’s history of public house conversions, the purchase history, the decision behind removing landlord / manager accommodation and the current or proposed premise license. He offered to put forward to the applicant the Deed of Easement option to control noise complaints. He stated that the benefit of the development would be to return a public house to the community and invest in the long term aesthetic and function of the property. He confirmed the acoustic testing had been approved by public health and a qualified acoustic manager and he did not believe it would be detrimental to the residential apartments.

 

In response to further questions from Members, officers confirmed:

·        Parking would be solely for residential use.

·        The option and negotiation process of a Deed of Easement would require applicant’s presence and therefore result in deferring the application.

·        That although the issues that resulted in the applicant’s 2018 proposal being denied, having now been addressed, there was the new addition of being named a non-designated Heritage Asset.

·        That the degree of harm in relation to the original architectural features being altered to include skylights and dormer would not warrant refusal, as the building was not grade I or II listed and had been agreed upon by a conservation expert.

 

[Cllr Waudby had her camera off between 16:55-16:58, she confirmed that she had heard all of the discussion when her camera was briefly off]

 

Following debate, Cllr Daubeney moved, and Cllr Waudby seconded, that the application be refused.

 

In accordance with the revised Standing Orders, a named vote was taken with the following result:

·        Cllrs Craghill, Crawshaw, Daubeney, Fisher, Melly, Orrell, Perrett, Waudby, Webb and Hollyer voted for the motion.

·        Cllr Galvin voted against the motion.

 

Resolved: That the application be refused.

 

Reason: Unnecessary loss of significant part of the public house, resulting in an unviable facility undermining the significance of the nondesignated heritage asset. Contrary to NPPF para 92, LP policy D1, HW1 and D7.

 

[The meeting adjourned from 19:10 to 19:32, during which time Cllr Orrell left the meeting].

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page