Agenda item

Change of use of basement and ground floors from members' club (Sui Generis) to dental clinic and surgery (Use Class D1) and associated internal alterations.

Public Participation

Mr Guy Loosmore, spoke in objection to the application

Mrs Marion Hannaford-Dobson, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Aaron Henecke, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mark Cooper, Deputy Mayor, Marlborough Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

Lucy Rutter, Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the change of use of basement and ground floors from members' club (Sui Generis) to dental clinic and surgery (Use Class D1) and associated internal alterations.

The officer explained that the application had been called in by Cllr Nick Fogg MBE, due to perceived concerns that it contradicted Wiltshire’s Core Strategy page 122, para 5.78 which supported Marlborough’s town centre to continue to function as a prominent retail centre for east Wiltshire.

Key details were stated to include whether the use was acceptable in principle; whether the proposal would have a negative impact on parking and highway safety and impact on neighbour amenity.

It was explained that the application was for the change of use only. Any internal

alterations were to be considered separately under the associated listed building application, which was being held in abeyance.

Photos of the site were shown to the meeting.  The site and its surroundings lay within the North Wessex Downs AONB and the Marlborough Conservation Area. The property was formerly a member’s club and was currently vacant. The application sought planning permission for the proposed change of use of the existing members’ club (sui generis) to a dental clinic and surgery (use class D1 – non-residential institution).

Under the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) the proposal was considered to be acceptable in principle. It was in a sustainable location and would contribute to the vitality and viability of the area and the economy. There were a number of existing restaurants, pubs, bars and cafes in the town centre and consequently the loss of this one establishment was not considered likely to have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The officer explained that saved policy ED18 of the Kennet Local Plan offered protection specifically for the Prime Shopping Areas, but that this policy was out of date (written pre-NPPF for a time expired local plan). Although a saved policy under the WCS, the weight to be attached to it should be on the basis of its conformity with NPPF. Policy within the NPPF was stated to be a material consideration when assessing development proposals under saved policy ED18. It had been established under previous appeal decisions (Costa Coffee, High Street, Marlborough) that little weight should be given to this policy in that it did not conform with NPPF policy e.g. it was considered to be inflexible and negatively worded vs. the NPPFs flexible and positive approach to changes of use in high streets. It was thought that the proposed dental clinic would contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre, which demonstrated compliance with ED18.

Most of the objections received were in relation to the loss of the business, however it was confirmed that the local planning authority did not have control over ownership of the property. The applicant had stated that the first floor of the building would retain the sui generis members’ club use.

The principle of development was considered to be acceptable and the application conformed with relevant development plan policies. As such it was recommended for approval. 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Nick Fogg MBE, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Fogg MBE had called the application in as it was a hugely valuable community facility. Its loss would be a blow to the vibrancy of the high street. He thought it was a viable business and stressed the value of the asset. The site had been a hostelry since the 15th century. It had been a conservative club for many, many years.  The facility could be used for weddings, wakes and other large occasions and was not replicated elsewhere in Marlborough, other than at the Town Hall.  It was used by a large number of organisations. The upper floor had two residential units. The applicant’s offer to maintain the first floor as a social club had issues in his opinion. He felt that you could not separate consents in that way; also you would be unable to access the upper floors when the dental clinic was closed.  The two nearest neighbours were said to be opposed to the application. Cllr Fogg, MBE thought it was odd that a retained policy could be declared redundant. He urged the committee to reject the application.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant planning permission with conditions as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr James Sheppard.

Cllr Stewart Dobson stated that the members club had recently been opened to the public.  The High Street was the heart of Marlborough and was still vibrant and viable. The site was one of two large venues in the town. The applicant already had approval for a dental clinic at 42 High Street and there were three other dentists in the town so there was no need for another dental clinic.  It was suggested that footfall for a dental clinic would not be as high as in its current use. He felt policy ED18, which stated there should only be A1 uses permitted within the Primary Shopping Centre, should be complied with. He was unaware of problems with anti-social behaviour or littering associated with the current use. Therefore, he felt there was no justification for the change of use and stated that he would not be supporting the application. 

Cllr Mark Connolly stated that although dental practices were not typically found in high street locations, these needed to adapt and change. Marlborough was lucky to have a vibrant high street. He did not feel you could refuse the application due to the number of other dental clinics in the town. He was not against the D1 use in principle. He felt that you could not consider the possible use of the first floor as a member’s club as it was not part of the application. He felt that if the business was well used and viable it would not have closed. 

Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling stated that his first inclination was to support the proposal. At the Council level, policy was set to try to ensure consistency. However, the Council was increasingly asking local communities to take the lead. It was extremely clear from the speakers that the community was against the proposal. Therefore, he would not support the application.

At the conclusion of the debate, the proposed motion to grant planning permission with conditions was voted on. The motion did not pass.

Cllr Stewart Dobson proposed a motion to refuse planning permission, which was seconded by Cllr Nick Fogg, MBE.

Technical advice was received from the planning officers. They advised that we could not stop people applying for the change of use for different floors. It was also stated that at a previous appeal the planning inspector had said that retained policy ED18 was out of date and was negatively worded, unlike the NPPF which had a more positive emphasis.

After debate the reasons for refusal were stated as follows. The application was contrary to policy ED18 as it was not an A1 use. In addition, it was contrary to the spirit of NPPF paragraph 92, point C: To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needed, planning policies and decisions should -  guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs; and point D - ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community. It was also contrary to WCS core policy 14 paragraph 5.78.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission, against the officer recommendation, for the following reason:

The proposed change of use would result in the loss of an important existing facility within the Primary Shopping Area of Marlborough. The proposed development is not an A1 use nor would it make a positive contribution to the vitality and viability of the town centre. As such, it would be contrary to saved policy ED18 and Core Policy 14 (paragraph 5.78) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and Section 7 (paragraph 85) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.   

At 17:15 the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a comfort break. The meeting reconvened at 17:20.