Change of use from bakery to chip shop.

Change of use from bakery to chip shop.

The Principal Planning Officer provided details of updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda as follows:

·         One further letter of objection had been received.

·         A petition signed by 59 people in support of the proposal had been received.

Councillor RI Matthews said that a chip shop in a shopping area might appear acceptable on face value but, with the full facts, he felt unable to support the application and commented on the following:

§          A ventilation system used at a nearby restaurant had been the source of complaints for a number of years and the system to be used for the proposed chip shop might not adequately control fumes and odours.

§          The proposed change of use would add to existing parking difficulties associated with the parade of shops.

§          There had been issues with anti-social behaviour in the locality, requiring additional police patrols, and this particular type of use could exacerbate the situation.

§          Litter was becoming a significant problem in rural wards.

Given these concerns, Councillor Matthews proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons: harm to the residential amenity of the residents in the area particularly those above and adjacent to the premises; harm to the character of the area in terms of social activities outside normal business hours; increased noise and litter; and emanating fumes and odours.

Councillor SJ Robertson concurred with the Local Ward Member and, given the problems with anti-social behaviour, suggested that fear of crime be included in the reasons for refusal.

Councillor PJ Edwards questioned whether the fact that the site was located next to a doctors' surgery was a material planning consideration and, if approved, the reasonableness of including further conditions to mitigate anti-social behaviour and fear of crime, such as additional lighting or CCTV.

In response to a question from Councillor PA Andrews about complaints to Environmental Health, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Manager had no objection to the application subject to conditions.  Councillor Matthews said that he was surprised that the long history of problems in the area was not referred to in the comments of the Environmental Health Manager.

In response to other questions and comments, the Principal Planning Officer advised that:

·         The proximity of a doctors' surgery was not a material planning consideration.

·         The business hours of nearby shops were similar to the proposed hours for this use.

·         It was considered that the potential environmental impacts of the proposal could be controlled through conditions.

·         The Traffic Manager had no objection to the proposal.

·         The parade of shops was reasonably well lit but an additional condition for appropriate additional lighting could be included.

·         A condition would require the implementation of a litter management plan and officers were not aware of any serious complaints about the applicant's other operations.

Councillor MAF Hubbard questioned the likelihood of success of defending refusal of planning permission on appeal given the other nearby uses and he noted the popularity of low cost food outlets during economic downturns.

The Central Team Leader commented that many of the concerns raised could be addressed through conditions and the suggested reasons for refusal would be difficult to defend if challenged.

RESOLVED:

That

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

1.            Harm to the residential amenity of the residents in the area particularly those above and adjacent to the premises.

2.            Harm the character of the area in terms of social activities outside normal business hours.

3.            Increased noise and litter.

4.            Emanating fumes and odours.

5.            Fear of crime.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation 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 Central Team Leader advised that, as the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation  and the Sub-Committee's view might not be defensible if challenged, he was minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]