A DECISION to refuse planning permission for a Bradford banqueting suite has been overturned.

It now appears the long-running and thorny saga over Pearl Banqueting, on Manningham Lane, is at a close following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The building had planning permission to operate as a restaurant, but since 2014 had been used without permission as Pearl Banqueting - a wedding and events venue.

Last year two retrospective applications to change the use of the building from a restaurant to banqueting facilities were refused by Bradford Council.

One application was refused partly over highway safety concerns, plus fears over noise and disturbance. The second application was again refused over concerns that noise from people using the venue could impact on people living near the site.

A third application was then turned down back in May.

TOP STORIES:

While neither Bradford Council’s Highways Officers or Environmental Health Officer objected to the application, councillors raised concerns over parking provision and highways safety, flying in the face of the recommendation to approve the application.

In an appeal, applicant Tony Singh, of Power Centre UK, hit back at the decision, saying the venue could “close unnecessarily” and slammed councillors’ reasons for refusal as “entirely unjustified”. As reported in the Telegraph & Argus in November 2018, one planning application for the change of use said the site had “illicitly operated as a banqueting suite” for the past four years.

A document setting out the appeal case said: “The restaurant/cafe element of the business only operates during pre-booked events, therefore necessitating this change of use application (retrospective) on technical grounds.

“It is considered that the existing use and proposed use are similar in nature.”

In upholding the appeal, and thereby granting retrospective permission for the change of use from a restaurant/cafe to banqueting facilities, Inspector Roy Merrett, said: “Although it is undisputed that the parking provision on the site would fall short of the Council’s maximum standards, this in itself does not make the proposal unacceptable.

"I have no reason to dispute that there are a number of larger designated car parks located further afield. Whilst use of this parking provision would be less convenient, I do not consider it would render the venue inaccessible to guests, particularly when weighed against the prospect of incurring parking penalties.”

He also highlighted traffic regulation orders and restrictions are in place in the area, which is “well served” by bus services and accessible to many by rail or walking.

The report goes on to say: “Some third parties objecting to the development have referred to impairments to driver visibility caused by the letting off of fireworks outside the venue.

“Whilst I have no reason to doubt such occurrences, there is nothing to persuade me that they are common or that any impacts are more than fleeting, such that there would be material harm to highway safety.”

The Inspector adds he is “mindful” the Council’s highways authority has not raised an objection and after looking at different considerations concludes the proposal, with the enforcement of parking restrictions “would not be expected to result in harm to highway and pedestrian safety or material harm to the free flow of traffic”.

He also concludes it would not “result in undue harm to the living conditions of local residents with regard to noise disturbance”, but conditions will be imposed.

These include: Hours of operation from 11am until 11pm; measures for dealing with excessive noise outlined in the noise impact report must be implemented in full and retained; the car parking areas shown in approved plans must be retained and kept available for the parking of vehicles.

Mr Singh said of the decision: “We are pleased that the Planning Inspector took a balanced view of our application and decided to overturn the council’s decision based on the merits of the proposal.”

“The trading business has evolved over the years, as we have taken a pragmatic approach in response to market forces which steered the business towards pre-booked events rather than a restaurant. We consider that this new authorised use will cause far less impact on residential amenity and on the road network than the use previously permitted.”

“An application for change of use on a property of this nature is a very complex matter, and should not be refused simply because a minority of people don’t like it. We will continue to employ car park attendants during events and implement other measures to minimise any inconvenience to local residents.

"We now intend to invest even further into the business to give the city an events venue it can truly be proud of.”