Demolish existing public convenience and replace with three storey building, hot food takeway on ground floor, storage on first floor, staff living accommodation on second floor.

Demolish existing public convenience and replace with three storey building, hot food takeaway on ground floor, storage on first floor, staff living accommodation on second floor.

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

·         The footway to the rear is an adopted highway therefore a Stopping Up Order would be required for its closure.  It is believed that ownership is vested in Herefordshire Housing.

·         The agent has confirmed opening times of 1200-1400 hours and 1700-2300.

The Principal Planning Officer also provided the following officer comments:

§         The applicants have offered to light the path, which falls, outside of the application site.

§         The opening times will be controlled by condition 5.

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, commented on the value of the site inspection that had been held and said that this proposal provided an opportunity for much needed redevelopment, particularly given the history of anti-social behaviour issues at this site.

Councillor GA Powell, also a Local Ward Member, outlined the background to the application and said that, although a smaller building with two rather than three bedrooms would be preferred, she considered the application to be acceptable on balance subject to conditions, particularly in respect of CCTV and traffic calming.

Councillor PJ Edwards, the other Local Ward Member, said that he could not support the application in its current state as he considered the proposal to be a serious over intensification of the site.  He felt that the scale of the development would have an overbearing impact and questioned whether such an increase in cubic capacity would be permitted elsewhere.  He said that refusal would provide an opportunity for the applicant to reassess the scheme and undertake discussions with Hereford Housing to address the problems with the alleyway to the rear; he added that, as well as anti-social behaviour, there were litter and fire risk issues associated with such pathways.  Councillor Edwards also said that there were no suitable areas of parking for this use.

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes noted that the Sub-Committee had been minded to refuse a proposal for a chip shop at the last meeting [DCCW2008/2887/F refers] and that there were similar concerns with this application.  Councillor Lloyd-Hayes commented that some matters, such as litter and emanating fumes and odours, could be controlled through conditions but relevant reasons for refusal for this application included: 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; and fear of crime.

Councillor AM Toon reported that Herefordshire Housing was considering options for the regeneration of this area and this application might be out of character with the emerging design approach.

Councillor MAF Hubbard questioned whether the applicant could be required to meet the legal costs of a Stopping Up Order, if agreement was reached with Herefordshire Housing.  The Legal Practice Manager advised Members that they had to consider the application before them, that the alleyway was not owned or controlled by the applicant, and that planning conditions had to be enforceable, certain and reasonable.  It was noted that elements within the applicant's control, namely the lighting of the footpath and a contribution towards CCTV, would be required through the conditions.

Councillor ACR Chappell commented on concerns about traffic and parking, over intensification, and the number of takeaway food outlets in the locality.  He said that the area would benefit from regeneration and this site could be redeveloped as open space.

Councillor WU Attfield acknowledged the need for redevelopment but considered that the proposed building was too large and the additional noise and commotion that would result from another takeaway would have detrimental impact on the area.

Councillor JD Woodward felt that the proposal would have an impact on residential amenity and questioned whether the Herefordshire Local Area Agreement, particularly the commitment to reduce levels of obesity, was a planning consideration in this instance.

Councillor SJ Robertson noted that the alleyway was a key concern for Members and suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to enable further time to discuss the options with the relevant parties.

In response to a question from Councillor AJM Blackshaw, the Legal Practice Manager said that it would be unreasonable to require a Stopping Up Order at the applicant's expense as they were not the landowner.  He added that the applicant could find themselves in breach of the condition through no fault of their own and this could potentially make the condition unenforceable.  Councillor Blackshaw maintained that the issue of the alleyway was material to the determination.

In response to questions and comments, the Central Team Leader advised that: officers were satisfied that the development would fit in with the adjoining buildings; the Traffic Manager had no objections and it was considered that there was adequate parking in the vicinity; there was no existing policy basis to limit the number of fast food outlets; and the Sub-Committee needed to consider whether this proposal would have a significant additional impact on the existing alleyway, adding that the application provided an opportunity to improve lighting and CCTV coverage.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented on the limitations of CCTV, particularly if not monitored properly, and questioned the level of contribution identified.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the £5,000 contribution had been negotiated between the CCTV Officer and the applicant; this was higher than initially proposed.  He explained that the contribution would be used as part of a wider scheme for the shopping parade.

Councillor Toon commented on the expense of operating adequate CCTV provision and, referring to existing anti-social behaviour issues, felt that input should be sought from West Mercia Constabulary.

In view of the issues raised, a number of Members felt that consideration of the application should be deferred for further negotiations.  The Central Team Leader reminded the Sub-Committee that the applicant did not own the footpath land and, therefore, he questioned the extent of progress that could be made on some of the issues identified.

Councillor Edwards suggested that further reasons for refusal included inadequate arrangements for stock deliveries and business waste management.  He also re-iterated concerns about the scale of the proposed development and the detrimental impact on residential amenity.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that a number of Members had strong concerns about a hot food takeaway in this location and, if the principle of the proposed development was not supported, he questioned the usefulness of deferring the application for further detailed negotiations.

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.            Overintensification of the site.

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

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

4.            Fear of crime.

5.            Inadequate arrangements for stock deliveries and business waste management. 

(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, although the resolution was contrary to the officers’ recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]