Agenda and minutes

Apologies were intimated from:-

Councillor Robin Currie

Councillor Rory Colville

Councillor Roderick McCuish

Councillor Bruce Marshall

Councillor David Kinniburgh declared an interest in that one of the objectors was a work colleague of his.  He noted that he had not entered into any discussions of the application with his colleague and that he did not socialise with him.  In these respects, Councillor Kinniburgh was satisfied that he could therefore continue to participate in the meeting.

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and general introductions were made.

Charles Reppke, Head of Governance and Law outlined the hearing procedure and the Chair invited anyone who wished to speak at the meeting to identify themselves. 

Planning Officer

Howard Young, Area Team Leader advised that he had received a late representation in the form of a letter in support of the application, from M and T Niblock.  This was handed to a Committee official.

Mr Young then gave a brief outline of the application which was for the change of use of a retail unit (Class 1) to a public house.  He provided a short history of the site which was an old, and now vacant retail unit selling carpets. A short slide presentation provided details of the proposed ground floor plan and views of the premises from various aspects.  

Mr Young advised that the proposed development was in the town centre where there was a presumption in favour of retail and commercial development and that the key issue was that of the impact on the residential amenity of residents in the adjacent flats, particularly with the proposed beer garden.  However, after consultation with the Area Environmental Health Manager and Area Roads Manager who had no objections to the proposal, he was minded to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons contained within the original report.

Applicant

Nigel Connor, Head of Licensing, J D Wetherspoons Plc, thanked everyone for the opportunity to address any concerns that had been raised and that it was his intention to provide them with some reassurance.  Mr Connor stressed that the first point he wanted to make was that he considered the development would provide investment to the town of Helensburgh.  The refurbishment of the site would be at considerable expense, which the company would not wish to outlay unless they expected the venture to be successful.  The frontage of the building would be improved, jobs would be provided and benefits would be had to the wider economy.  Mr Connor informed that in his experience, people would be less likely to go elsewhere if a good facility was provided in their own town.  Addressing the parking issue, he said that it was expected that the majority of the customers would come on foot and when visiting the town.  He appreciated that the main concern to residents was the beer garden and in this respect he referred to a similar property in Greenock where there had been little or no complaints.  The emphasis would be on food and not drink.  No music would be played or entertainment provided. Mr Connor advised that 50% of the sales in their establishments were for food and that they sold approximately 650000 cups of tea/coffees.  In other words, this was not a ‘typical’ pub.  Mr Connor added that the had much experience in managing any potential problems and that Wetherspoons’ policy was that of strict control of the amount of drink sold to customers and that staff were provided with training on these measures. There were also strict controls on the provision of alcohol to under age drinkers and that Wetherspoons participated in such schemes as ‘Challenge 21’.  Mr Connor said that CCTV would be in place both internally and in the beer garden and that there would be liaison with police as a continuing exercise. Managers would also liaise weekly to address any problems and great emphasis was placed on community involvement.  In the event that the application was successful, Mr Connor offered to set up meeting with the local residents to get their feedback. 

Regarding concerns relating to the beer garden, Mr Connor advised that there would be control measures in place such as CCTV and staff patrolling.  He informed that there were some benefits in that people were easier to control if they were not out on the street and that it would be possible to place restrictions on the hours consumption in the beer garden.

The emptying of glass containers would not be carried out during anti-social hours and conditions could also be added to this.

Mr Connor said that he was familiar with the issues resulting from fumes and extraction but that conditions could also be applied here.  He advised that he had been in consultation with the Environmental Health Manager and that no concerns had been raised.

In relation to number of objections received, Mr Connor advised that there had also been a number of letters in favour of the application by those who recognised that there were clearly some benefits to be had.  He was aware of policy LP BAD1 but felt that matter within it was only ‘potential’ issues.  He asked that everyone take into account the specific reassurances he had given them together with the 31 years of experience of the company and that it was his experience that any problems could be quickly addressed and overcome.  He asked that suitable consideration should be given to the application and hoped that it would be recommended for approval.

Statutory Consultees

Nigel Millar – Helensburgh Community Council

Mr Millar advised that this was the largest and most important in Helensburgh for decades and that he was delighted it was being considered.  He informed that the Community Council’s objection was over the long term and stressed that they were not against a new pub, or Wetherspoons, in particular, and he acknowledged that they were a well respected, family friendly and well run establishment.  The problem was that this particular site was the wrong location.  The CC had considered what had been said by residents and that a consultation exercise had been undertaken.  Four residents were in support and twenty nine were against.  Mr Millar said that the nature of the application went against the housing policies which should have been taken into consideration and that those policies on page 8 of the report only painted a partial picture.  There was no assessment against each of these policies and suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.