Conversion and extension of garage/preparation area to single storey dwelling and extension of take-away preparation area.  Formation of parking area for existing flats.

Conversion and extension of garage/preparation area to single storey dwelling and extension of take-away preparation area.  Formation of parking area for existing flats.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that:

§             An additional condition was recommended requiring the floor levels of the extension to be above the highest recorded flood level as recommended previously by the Environment Agency.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Mitchell spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Rogers spoke in support of the application.

In response to comments made by the objector, the Principal Planning Officer suggested that two additional conditions, the first to require deliveries via Hinton Road and the second to restrict deliveries to the period 11.00 to 16.00, in order to reduce congestion and disturbance.

Councillor WU Attfield, a Local Ward Member, felt that the proposal would alter the character of the area and the associated traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate congestion in the locality.  Councillor ACR Chappell, also a Local Ward Member, noted that there was significant pedestrian footfall past this site and explained the existing safety hazards associated with traffic and parking in Hinton Road, Acacia Close and Peregrine Close.  He did not feel that the previous reasons for refusal had not been resolved satisfactorily and he proposed that planning permission be refused on this basis.  Councillor AT Oliver, the other Local Ward Member, commented on the popularity of the takeaway and the traffic generated as a result.  He considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and on residential amenities; particular reference was made to Unitary Development Plan policy S1 (sustainable development).

Councillor RI Matthews questioned whether there were defendable grounds for refusal given that a number of issues had been addressed since the previous application was refused (DCCE2006/1277/F refers).  The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Sub-Committee that the size of the takeaway would not be increased and that the existing flats did not have any off street parking but this proposal would provide a parking space for each unit.  The Central Team Leader added that the Planning Inspector, in dismissing the recent appeal, acknowledged that the existing situation was not ideal but, with the proposed off street parking, it was deemed acceptable.  It was considered that the other issues raised by the Inspector had been addressed.

The Local Ward Members maintained that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of the area.

RESOLVED:  That      

(i)      The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reason for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services) provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the applications to the Planning Committee:

1.      The intensification in the use of the site will have a harmful impact upon the character and amenity of the area.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:

Following the vote on this application, the Head of Planning Services advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was minded to refer the matter to the Planning Committee as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged.]