Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

WARD: Grange

NOTED

1. The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, who highlighted that whilst there was no objection for the change of use, objections had been identified in relation to the impact of external ducting, which had not been possible to resolve with the applicant.
2. The deputation received from Mr Daniel Carpenter, speaking on behalf of local residents in support of the recommendation.

a. As a local resident living adjacent to the proposed development, concerns were raised in relation to:

·        overlooking of adjacent properties

·        insufficient parking  provision given the proposed change of use.

·        the impact on existing light pollution problems and additional odour pollution, likely to be created as a result of the proposed use.

·        the insufficient bin and storage provision , given problems already experienced in the area including fox and vermin infestation.

·        Littering will be a problem.

·        the location of the property in a Conservation Area given the design siting and visual impact of the flue, it will be seen from quite a distance.

·        the potential rise in anti social behaviour, with no loitering signs already installed in the area.

·        the number of similar uses already located within the immediate area.

       b. The level of local opposition to the scheme was highlighted along with   the fact  a similar planning application for an adjacent property had been refused for similar reasons.

      3. The meeting was then adjourned for two minutes so that Mr Carpenter could distribute photographs he had taken in support of his deputation, to the applicant and members.

4. The applicant’s agent, Mr Halit Ertas then spoke in favour of the application, including the following points:

1. In terms of the proposed change of use from A2 to A5, there were not many existing A5 uses in the immediate area and it was noted that A2 uses had not been successful.
2. It was recognised that the premises were located in a Conservation Area but it would not be possible to see the flue from street level at the front of the property. It would however be visible from the side and rear.
3. The aim was to protect and maintain a historical structure whilst also investing in a previously vacant building in which A2 use had not worked.
4. From street level, the flue would not be seen, but would only be seen from the side of the property.
5. The premises would be run as a traditional fish and chip bar and was not expected to generate a large increase in the volume of traffic or people  congregating in front of the premises.
6. Any traffic generation would occur after 6pm after the retail elements had closed.
7. The premises would not be open late in the evening and would only operate between the hours of 08:00 – 21:30, Monday to Saturday, there would not be any increase in noise levels or disturbances in the area.
8. There was already an established A5 take away use at No.21 & No.23 Grangeway, with flues.

5. The statement of Dennis Stacey, Chairman of Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) included the following points:

a.      Whilst the application had not formally been referred to the Conservation Advisory Committee (CAG), he had visited the premises as it was located within a Conservation Area.

b.      The need to ensure accurate plans were provided with clear details as to the location of the proposed flue and where it would exit the building. It was not felt this had been accurately reflected in the submitted plans and drawings.

c.      The shop was in a prominent position and the flue could be seen from The Grangeway.

d.      The rear elevation showed a very obvious structure that was bolted on. This was different to the other adjacent properties with a less cluttered appearance reflecting their location within it.

6. The Planning Decisions Manager responded to Members’ queries regarding the granting of A5 permission to 21/23 The Grangeway, which were also in the Conservation Area, but had been approved a number of years ago when planning policy had been different.

7.  Members’ debate and discussion regarding the proposed extractor flue,its size, siting, external design & finish, the flue’s detrimental effect on the host building, the flue’s detraction from the character of the Conservation Area. The Planning Decisions Manager confirmed that negotiations had failed with the applicant, to change the appearance and siting of the flue. So it was not possible to recommend approval or seek to control subject to pre-commencement conditions. Subject to the decision of the Committee, further discussion could be undertaken with the applicant to look for an alternative acceptable solution.

Members also discussed the use of the property as A5 and viability with the proposed hours and the need to encourage businesses. In response the officer indicated that there was no standard for % of A3 uses in a parade and that the policy grounds for refusal were strong.

8. The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 8 votes for and 4 against, with one abstention.

AGREED: That planning permission be refused, for the reason detailed within the report.