For:            Pacemark Properties Limited, per Malcolm Rogers,  Dixon Rogers Designs, Highfields, Stanford Road, Great Witley, WR6 6JG

To consider a planning application which has been referred to the Committee because the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee was mindful to refuse it, contrary to policy and officer recommendations

Ward: St. Martins & Hinton

The Development Control Manager reported the following update:

A letter had been received from Cllr Oliver stating that, in his view, the development is contrary to policies H13, H14 and H18 of the UDP.   He considered that the scheme would result in a reduction in amenity space and privacy for existing flats, inadequate amenity for the new dwelling, the relocation of the food preparation area may result in deliveries from Acacia Close impacting on safety and security of existing residents, and the original dwelling will no longer be the dominant feature.

A further letter had been received from Mr and Mrs Cound of 4 Acacia Close pointing out that all the residents of Acacia Close object to the scheme and that they were concerned about delivery traffic in Acacia Close, the hours of operation and litter associated with the use.

OFFICER COMMENTS

There would be a loss of some of the existing garden is to provide off street parking for the existing flats and proposed dwelling however, the Planning Inspector found this to be a benefit of the previous proposals.  The new dwelling would have a commensurate area of private garden with communal garden retained for the existing flats.  The scale of physical development on the site would not be significantly increased. Part of the food preparation area would be relocated from the single storey garage on the Peregrine Close side of the building to an enlarged kitchen and preparation area on the Acacia Close frontage but was not significantly increased overall. The principal front elevation of the development to Peregrine Close would remain the dominant feature, albeit that the current single storey garage would be slightly enlarged to accommodate one additional (single storey) dwelling.

With regard to the letter from Mr and Mrs Cound, the difficulty was that the hot food takeaway already existed without any conditions on times of operation or deliveries. It would therefore be unreasonable to apply hours of use conditions to the extension when they could not be applied to the main use itself. A condition to require deliveries through the front door of the shop only would not be practical to enforce. A delivery vehicle could lawfully use any part of the public highway.

It should be noted that final details of extraction equipment, which should be an improvement on the current facilities, had yet to be received. Consequently the recommendation in the report remained one of seeking delegated approval to issue the permission, but only after satisfactory details of the extraction equipment had been received.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr. Rogers the agent acting for the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Councillor GFM Dawe was of the view that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of the area and that it should be refused. The Committee noted the concerns that had been expressed by the Local Ward Members and the Central Area Planning Sub Committee, but questioned whether there were defendable grounds for refusal given that a number of issues had been addressed since the previous application was refused.  It was therefore decided that the application should be approved.

RESOLVED

That subject to submission and approval of the takeaway extraction equipment, the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to approve the application subject to the following conditions and any further conditions considered necessary by officers.

1.      A01 (Time limit for commencement (full permission)).

         Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      B01 (Samples of external materials).

         Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings.

3.      H06 (Vehicular access construction).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4.      H13 (Access, turning area and parking).

         Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway.

5.      H29 (Secure covered cycle parking provision).

          Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for secure covered cycle accommodation within the application site, encouraging alternative modes of transport in accordance with both local and national planning policy.

6.      G01 (Details of boundary treatments).

         Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure dwellings have satisfactory privacy.

7.     E16 (Removal of permitted development rights)

         Reason:  In order to safeguard the character and amenities of the locality.

8.     Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 52.6 AOD unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

        Reason: To protect the development from flood risk.

Informatives:

1.      N15 - Reason(s) for the Grant of PP/LBC/CAC.

2.      N19 - Avoidance of doubt.