Wine bar at 67 High Street, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to change the ground floor from a bank to a wine bar.

“It is proposed to change the use of the building from a bank (Class E) to a wine bar (sui generis).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a Grade II listed former bank in a town centre, with flats above, adjoining homes, a rear courtyard and nearby public parking.

“The site comprises a Grade II listed former bank (Class E use) occupying a prominent position on the High Street within Stony Stratford Town Centre. The building is a traditionally constructed three-storey red brick building featuring decorative string courses, arches and keystones, making a positive contribution to the character of both the listed building and wider street scene. The upper floors of the building are in residential use, comprising of five flats.”

“The site forms part of a largely commercial frontage characterised by a mix of retail, service, food and drink, and other town centre uses in the Stony Stratford District Centre. The site fronts directly onto High Street, with vehicle and pedestrian access available from the highway network serving the town centre.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the use suited the town centre, supported the listed building and town-centre vitality, and its parking and noise impacts could be mitigated.

“The proposal represents an appropriate use in this location being comparable to other town centre uses. The proposal is in conflict with Policy CT10 due to a significant shortfall in on-site parking provision arising from the development.”

“Therefore, the economic, heritage and town centre benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh the identified parking conflict and residual amenity impacts, and it is recommended that permission be approved.”

Officer report

Parking and neighbouring noise

The proposal fell short of parking standards and would leave some intrusive courtyard noise, but officers considered public parking, the location and conditions sufficient.

“Policy NE6 recognises that development resulting in intrusive impacts may be acceptable where the benefits of the proposal outweigh the identified harm and where feasible mitigation has been implemented. In this case, the acoustic testing demonstrates that significant measures have been incorporated within the building fabric to limit noise transmission between the commercial unit and the residential flats above.”

“Having regard to the above, it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in some residual noise and disturbance, particularly associated with use of the courtyard area, and this harm attracts weight against the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highway Authority and Environmental Health raised no objection subject to controls, while the parish council and ward councillors made no comments.

“No objection. The Highway Authority notes that the application is not supported by a detailed transport assessment and does not quantify parking demand, assess the proposal against adopted parking standards, or provide information regarding servicing and delivery arrangements. However, they consider the site to be an appropriate location for this type of town centre use.”

“Further advise that the acoustic mitigation measures identified within the assessment should be implemented and retained, and that the premises should operate in accordance with an approved Noise Management Plan and Music Policy. Subject to appropriate controls, Environmental Health raise no objection in principle to the proposed change of use.”

Officer report

Objections received

Two objections concerned evening noise, residential amenity, courtyard activity, parking shortages, highway safety and inadequate transport information.

“Proposed wine bar would increase evening and late-night activity, resulting in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents; ▪ Submitted Noise Impact Assessment underestimates likely noise impacts and that the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, including customer dispersal measures and controls over the courtyard area, has not been adequately demonstrated…”

“Level of on-site parking provision would be insufficient to serve the proposed use; ▪ Access and manoeuvring arrangements are constrained, with potential for vehicle conflict and queuing on Church Street; ▪ Intensification of the site as a drinking establishment would exacerbate parking and highway issues in the locality; and ▪ Insufficient information has been provided regarding parking demand and compliance with parking standards.”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no public speakers on the application.

The vote

The Chair’s motion to grant permission subject to the report’s conditions was carried.

“The Chair, seconded by Councillor Eaton proposed the recommendation for debate that: Permission be granted subject to the conditions in the main report. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried. RESOLVED - That permission be granted subject to the conditions in the main report.”

Minutes

Main conditions

The conditions control customer opening hours, courtyard use and external amplified sound to protect neighbouring occupiers from noise.

“Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers from noise impacts.”

“No amplified music, amplified speech, loudspeaker, public address system or other amplified sound reproduction equipment shall be operated within the external seating area or courtyard hereby approved at any time.”

Officer report