Planning Committee Statement

Impact on the Registered Building 14. There are clearly both positive and negative impacts on the Registered fabric. Positively, the façade would be renovated, the canopy restored and the setting improved very considerably. Negatively, much of the building would be lost, there would be loss of, or changes to some of the interesting features of the façade, and the intended entertainment use would be lost. ### Parking/Highway Issues 15. The Highway Authority is content except for minor amendments. There would, inevitably, be traffic crossing the footway, but no traffic using Castle Mona Avenue. The parking ratio accords with what appears to be working successfully on other flat developments on the Promenade. ### Impact on Adjoining Users 16. Residents at the rear would be affected by the new buildings fronting on to Castle Mona Avenue. Whilst there may in some instances be a loss of Sea View, the proposed buildings are pleasing and not, in themselves, out of scale or unreasonably tall. Users of the site at present would be displaced, and are understandably concerned. Adjoining users on the Promenade would not be adversely affected. The Environment of the Flats 17. The proposed flats would comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations. Some face inwards, but over a pleasant green space. Arrangements for refuse storage are included. Recommendations 18. There would arise both benefits and drawbacks as a result of the proposed development, and, in reaching its decision, the Planning Committee has had regard to, and attempted to attach appropriate weight to both. The Committee has concluded that, having particular regard to the views expressed by the Department of Tourism and Leisure, the loss of "The Venue" as a place for live entertainment is a sufficient reason to warrant refusal. Other places of live entertainment are different – either in terms of formality and nature (such as the Villa Marina or The Gaiety Theatre), or in terms of size (such as the nightclubs and pubs). The Department of Tourism and Leisure has suggested requiring the applicant to provide, within a "realistic specified timeframe", a replacement facility "not necessarily on this site". Such a requirement could not form the subject of a valid planning condition, and, without being very much more specific, could not be subject to Legal Agreement. Accordingly, the Committee recommends refusal. However, if the appointed person is minded to recommend approval, it is suggested that consideration should be given to the imposition of the conditions attached initially. This statement has been prepared on behalf of the Planning Committee by Mr B J Sinden, Senior Planning Officer Signed D. H. Lindley Date 23.9.05