Demolition of derelict public toilet building and erection of two storey building for hot food takeaway on ground floor and storage on first floor.

Demolition of derelict public toilet building and erection of two storey building for hot food takeaway on ground floor and storage on first floor.

The Central Team Leader gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               The Highway Agency raised no objection.

§               Herefordshire Housing had confirmed that they had long term plans for the regeneration of the area.

Officer comments were also provided as follows:

§               It was reported that paragraph 6.12 of the report needed to be changed to reflect the requirement to contribute to CCTV.  Payment of £5,000 had been agreed.  Consequently, an additional condition (B07 - Section 106 Agreement) was recommended.

§               The issue raised by Herefordshire Housing did not impact upon the recommendation in the report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Goldsworthy spoke in objection to the planning application.

In response to a comments made by the speaker, the Principal Lawyer - Corporate advised that covenants and leases were civil matters usually outside the control of the planning authority.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Smith spoke in support of the application.

Councillor H Davies, a Local Ward Member, acknowledged concerns about another takeaway in the area and the existing problems with the alleyway adjoining the site.  However, Councillor Davies said that local people considered the former public toilet building to be an eyesore and, therefore, felt that the proposal was acceptable.

Councillor GA Powell, also a Local Ward Member, commented on anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the existing building and, although concerns were expressed about the alleyway, felt that the application could be supported.  In response to a question, the Central Team Leader advised that, as it formed part of the public highway, the process for the closure / stopping up of the alleyway was a separate matter to this planning application.

Councillor PJ Edwards, the other Local Ward Member, noted that the applicant had reduced the massing of the proposal compared to that refused under application DCCW2008/2781/F, and he also noted the need to remove the existing derelict building.  However, referring to Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan policies DR1 (Design), DR2 (Land Use and Activity), DR3 (Movement), DR5 (Planning Obligations) and TCR15 (Local and Neighbourhood Shopping Centres), Councillor Edwards proposed that this application be refused.  He made a number of related comments, including:

·               West Mercia Police estimated the cost of a CCTV system at The Oval to be between £30,000 and £50,000, therefore he considered the contribution of £5,000 was insufficient.

·               The proposal would exacerbate problems with the alleyway and consequently increase the fear of crime.

·               The application was premature as full details of the extraction and ventilation plant/equipment had not been provided.

·               The storage, waste and delivery arrangements were not acceptable.

·               The proposal would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and on the surrounding area.

·               The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the continued vitality and viability of the shopping centre.

Councillor NL Vaughan commented that CCTV systems not only had to be installed but also had to be operated and questioned whether the level of planning obligation proposed was adequate; it was suggested that a full breakdown of costs should be provided in future reports.

Councillor AM Toon said that it was regrettable that the existing building had not been demolished prior to the disposal of the site and commented that, although the design had improved since the last application, the proposal would not integrate with the emerging plans to regenerate the area.  Councillor Toon also commented on the number of existing hot food takeaways in the area.  Councillor ACR Chappell expressed similar views and felt the potential impact on the access and highways had not been fully assessed given existing problems with traffic and parking.  He added that vehicles had to reverse out of parking spaces into oncoming traffic and additional traffic generated by the proposal would compromise highway safety further.

Councillor KS Guthrie noted concerns that the development would exacerbate problems with the alleyway and commented on the need for a permanent solution, particularly as people intent of anti-social behaviour would not be deterred from climbing over a fence or gate.

Councillor RI Matthews felt that the proposed planning contribution towards CCTV was adequate given the scale of the proposal and questioned whether a refusal of planning permission could be sustained on appeal.

The Central Team Leader advised that the contribution had been discussed with the CCTV Officer and, although £15,000 had been sought initially, an offer of £5,000 was considered acceptable following negotiations with the applicant; it was noted that other elements of funding had been collected elsewhere.  The Sub-Committee was also advised that competition in itself was not a material planning consideration and, as takeaways were typical features of neighbourhood shopping centres, it was not considered that another outlet was unacceptable in this context.  It was also emphasised that the stopping up of the alleyway involved a separate process.

Councillors Davies and Powell recognised the concerns expressed but maintained that the proposal was acceptable on balance given the existing situation.

Councillor Edwards re-iterated concerns about the proposed level of contribution towards CCTV, issues with anti-social behaviour, the lack of progress with the alleyway problem, and highway safety considerations.

A motion to approve the application failed, then a motion to refuse the application was agreed.

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 and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.            The proposal by virtue of the scale, mass, intensity and Traffic generation will be detrimental to the amenity, security and highway safety of the area contrary to policies DR1, DR2 ,DR3 , DR5 and TCR13 and TCR15 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and guiding principles contained in PPS1.  Therefore the site is considered inappropriate for an A5 use.

(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 given the reasons put forward by Members.]