Plans to turn printing shop in South Leamington into bar are unlikely to get approval despite public support

Plans to turn a former printing shop in Leamington into a bar are unlikely to be approved despite public support.

A report by Wawick District Council officers made for the authority’s planning committee recommends the refusal of planning permission for the change of use application to turn the Classic Printers premises in Clemens Street into a bar called Sui Generis.

This is due to concerns from the environmental health officer (EHO) over potential noise and disturbance.

The report says: “Significant support has been received from members of the public in response to the proposed change of use.

"The location, close to the station and within the retail area, is considered appropriate for the proposed use.

“It is also noted that the unit is currently vacant, and its occupation would benefit the street.”

The applicant, Gurbinder Mudan, has applied for opening hours between 6pm and 1am on seven days a week and said there will be no live entertainment and that music would be kept at a low level.

Mr Mudan has also offered to negotiate on opening and closing times.

He said: ”[The bar ] will bring variety much needed to Old Town and regenerate the street to attract persons of all ages without prejudice to visit.

“The premises have become vacant due to the business closing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

"There are hardly any businesses wanting to lease or rent retail outlets apart from the hospitality industry.

"The proposal will ensure the premises are not boarded up and become an eyesore.

"I request the planning authority gives consideration to some basic principles for business to start filling up empty shops.”

The council officer has pointed out that policy BE3 of the Warwick District Local Plan states that ‘new development which has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents will not be permitted’.

In conclusion the council officer said: “The applicant has been unable to suitably demonstrate how these adverse impacts could be effectively mitigated.

“The proposal is thereby considered to be unneighbourly and contrary to the aforementioned policy.