Change of use of ground floor from class A1 (retail) to class A5 (takeaway).

Change of use of ground floor from class A1 (retail) to class A5 (takeaway).

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and explained the proposed rationalisation of parking.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Bunn (4 Holme Lacy Road) spoke against the application and Mr. Rackham (applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor R. Preece, a Local Ward Member, commented that the residential amenities of the area had improved since the closure of the convenience store.  Referring to the Highways Agency comment that ‘…takeaway restaurants by their very nature generate more trips in the evening and some of these trips may fall within peak times’, Councillor Preece he noted that peak times lasted until at least 6.30 p.m. in this area.  He noted that a ‘Keep Clear’ marking was proposed at the point of access onto Holme Lacy Road but he felt that drivers would take little notice of it.  He also noted the parking problems in the area generally.

Councillor P.J. Edwards suggested that, in order to address some of the concerns of residents, an additional condition requiring the placement of litter bins on all the nearby road junctions should be added to any planning permission granted.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer advised that Environmental Health had looked at the application in detail and did not object to the application subject to conditions; he added that the positioning and type of extraction system would ensure that noise and odours were limited.  He advised that recommended condition 7 (scheme of refuse storage) would ensure the provision of bins and the management and collection of litter.  He also advised that he was unaware of any serious accidents as a direct consequence of the previous use of the site for retail purposes and noted that neither the Highways Agency nor the Traffic Manager had raised formal objections to the application.  He emphasised that the lawful planning use of the site for retail purposes could be re-implemented at any time.

A number of Members expressed concerns about highway safety and sympathised with local residents about the potential impact on residential amenities.

The Development Control Manager commented that the Authority could not require the placement of bins outside the application site but, noting that the applicant’s agent had indicated a willingness to resolve such issues, Members’ concerns could be addressed through recommended condition 7.  The Development Control Manager responded to a question by advising that a delivery service could be operated from the site as long as it was ancillary to the lawful planning use.

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to recommended condition 8 which sought to safeguard the amenity of adjacent residential properties through the construction of a fence or wall to a minimum height of 2 metres along the eastern boundary of the site.

In response to a proposed condition, the Principal Planning Officer suggested that Officers be delegated to investigate requirements in respect of the use of bio-degradable food containers and, if other legislation did not cover this issue, add an appropriate condition if planning permission was granted.

Councillor Preece felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of highway safety and impact on residential amenities.

A motion to refuse the application received an equal number of votes and the Chairman used his casting vote to refuse the application; the Chairman felt that the case had not been made to warrant approval of the application.

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 Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.  Highways safety; and

2.  Detrimental impact on residential amenities.

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

[Note:            Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services as the Sub-Committee’s view might not be defensible if challenged given the comments received from the Highways Agency and the Transportation Manager.]