Agenda item

Full Planning Permission – Change of use from a former payday loan shop (Sui Generis) to an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) (Sui Generis)

9 High Street, Boston PE21 8SH

Chongie Entertainment Ltd

Change of use from a former payday loan shop (Sui Generis) to an  

Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) (Sui Generis)     

9 High Street, Boston PE21 8SH

Chongie Entertainment Ltd

The Senior Planner presented the application advising updates received following issue of the agenda.

A letter has been submitted from the marketing agent, confirming the site became vacant in October 2021 and that no offers for Class E or other uses were received in that time. The marketing agent also identifies a number of other vacant units within the vicinity.

The planning agent has also provided some commentary on matters discussed in the agenda. Firstly, the existing use of the site, the agent provides extracts from the previous occupants (Cash Converters) website that indicates the business primary use is s a pawnbrokers that would be a sui generis pay day loan shop. The second matter raised is the crossover with licensing and planning regimes, which states that these are separate functions and this matter has been verified by the appeal statements provided in support of the application. In addition the agent confirms that the license has now been granted by Boston Borough Council.

Three additional representations were received, taking the total to 41. These raised the following new issues that the site is within view of St Botolphs, one of the England’s ‘Great Churches’ and with good views of the historic town centre

Presenting the report the Senior Planner advised that application had been referred to committee due to the level of public comment received and due to the similar nature of the proposal (B/22/0222), also before Members which raise similar considerations.

The application site was 9 High Street, a large ground floor unit that fronts onto High Street but with a frontage display running the length of the shop along the pedestrianised Emery Lane. The site is in the town centre and Boston Conservation Area as defined on Map 1 of the Local Plan. The site is also in Flood Zone 3.   The building was currently vacant and was last in use in August 2021 as a pay day loan shop and existing signage identifies the unit was last occupied by Cash Converters.  The proposal sought to change the use to a different sui generis use to provide an Adult Gaming Centre.   This would have a ‘shop floor’ on the ground floor with upper floors used for back of house and storage purposes.  An Adult Gaming Centre was a licensed premises for those aged 18 and over that contained fruit machines and other similar style gaming machines. The licensing requirement limited the total number of category B machines in any one premises to up to 20% of the total number of machines. These machines have a maximum stake of £2 and a max pay out of £500. The remaining machines must be category C (with a maximum stake of £1 and maximum £100 pay out) or D (typically low stake fruit machine style, coin pushers, or crane grabs)

Committee were advised that whilst a number of objections had been received, not all comments were a material planning consideration with repetition of comments across the representation including, concerns noted at the suitability of the use with reference to the number of existing similar businesses, potential loss of the prominent site would undermine the retail function within the town and the negative impact on the environment and local amenity of the centre of Boston in relation to the enjoyment of residents and tourists.  Representations also voiced concern on the historic environment of the town centre, noting no heritage assessment had been submitted with the application and the existing site had structural and decorative features which were an example of an era and any ground floor frontage displace needed to be in keeping with that era.  A number of representations also raised concerns in respect of the health of wellbeing of the towns’ residents, due to the site encouraging gambling which could result in crime and debt.  Further effects could result in increased acts of anti-social behaviour and outcomes of debt and gambling could affect the publics’ wellbeing leading to poor mental health and suicide. 

Error on map re site of application site.

Representation was received from Mr Rush in objection to the application which included:

Referencing the comments made in objection to the first planning application the objector noted his disappointment at the lack of consultation on the application questioning if officers had done enough to inform the public.  Referencing the decision made in respect of the first application and the similar factors the objector felt it un-necessary to go any further and stated he hoped committee would apply the same level of concerns.  He further stated that both applications be investigated to ascertain their validity.

Representation was received from Ms. Webster the agent forChongie Entertainment Ltd which included:

No objections had been received from any of the statutory consultees, the site was not in a prime shopping area the application was only for a change of use.  The application complied with local polices, it was not a retail unit previously and the unit had been empty for over a year.  The customers for such a business were predominantly shift workers and only over 18 year olds were allowed.  The applicants were experienced professionals and existing stores all ran under a strict management plan.  The overwhelming objections were licensing matters and not planning related matters, all of which would have been considered during the licencing application process which had been granted.   Any future change of the shop frontage would be submitted under a future application.

No questions were tabled to either of the speakers by committee members.

Prior to moving into committee deliberation the Chairman invited the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure (Lead Officer for the committee) to respond to any comments made during the pubic representation. 

The Assistant Director stated that he had addressed all concerns in respect of the consultation process within his comments under the first application and advised that they were as relevant to this application.  There was no reason for the application not to be determined.   Whilst there were similarities to the two applications there were nuanced difference that needed to be taken into consideration.  Whilst consistency of application and policy was important, it was possible to have two similar applications with differing outcomes provided the policies were applied in the correct manner and the material differences were clearly recognised.

Committee deliberation followed which included the following foremost comments:

Supporting comments noted that there were differences to consider.  The site was not in a prime shopping area nor in the heart of the town.  The area was not a sensitive location due to the nature of the surrounding buildings and there would be no loss of retail space or vitality to the area.  Whilst Emery Lane did create significant footfall, it was passing footfall and not a dwelling place.  It was however in very poor condition with an existing mix of businesses from grooming establishments to food outlets, and any new business would hopefully improve the area.

Objecting comments noted that the area had deteriorated significantly over the previous 15 years, from what had once been a prime shopping area of the town to a deprived and run down area.  The site had more historic buildings within its proximity than the site of the first application with both the White Hart and the refurbished old bank alongside, and with views of the stump and also just across the river, the Guildhall, Fydell House and Shodfriars Hall.   Emery Lane was one of the gateways into and out of the town and the venue would have a negative impact on tourism.  Health and Wellbeing again needed to be considered with depravation prevalent within the area of the site which would itself encourage use by the poorest members of society who could least afford it.

Members questioned the frontage of the business requesting potential conditions or comments to the operators, for it to be in keeping with and more sympathetic to, the surrounding businesses. 

The Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure reminded members that they were only considering the application for a change of use on the site.  An application for signage would likely follow.  The Council could not force any application on any building and an informative was not recommended on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Jonathon Noble and seconded by Councillor Paul Goodale that a delegation be agreed to the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure and the Legal Officer to officially formulate the reasons for refusal of the application based on it being contrary to Policies 24/25 and 32 of the Local Plan, Section 16 of the NPPF and also Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act

Vote:   In Favour:  5.    Against 5.    Abstention 0.

The Chairman’s casting vote was against refusal.

Final Vote:   In Favour: 5.   Against: 6.   Abstention:  0

It was moved by Councillor Tom Ashton and seconded by Councillor Katie Chalmers that the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the reason and conditions therein:

Vote:   In Favour:  5.    Against 5.    Abstention 0.

The Chairman’s casting vote was in favour of granting.

Final Vote:   In Favour: 6.   Against: 5.   Abstention:  0

RESOLVED:

That the application be granted in line with officer recommendation subject to the following conditions and reasons:

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of four years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To take account of the present restrictions on implementing permissions, in order to assist the recovery and in order to comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans;

§     Site Location Plan  

§     Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and the interests of proper planning.