Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That the Head of Development Management be authorized to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Town

1. The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.
2. Member’s debate, comments and questions responded to by officers as follows:
3. Local residents had raised concerns regarding the environmental impact of the proposal, particularly in respect of the potential increase in the number of traffic movements in a predominately residential area.  It was considered inevitable that a significant number of traffic movements associated with the collection of the hot food would be made by personal vehicles or mopeds used by the fast-food delivery service providers.
4. There would be increased litter and refuse and other litter, including food waste which would encourage vermin.
5. No traffic assessment to assess noise and traffic generated during the intensive use of the unit until 10pm had been undertaken.  The increased traffic in the turning head of Herongate Close would impact on the flow of traffic while the car parking associated with the use of the property as a take-away in the area would impact on the parking spaces available for residents, particularly those in the flats above the retail premises.
6. The proposed hours of opening were longer that the existing off-licence.
7. The change of use was considered to be inappropriate for the surrounding neighbourhood.
8. The would be an obvious increase in the number of people coming to the area for the specific purpose to collect the food from the take-away, which would result in many delivery drivers waiting in the area until they received instructions to pick up from the premises.
9. The proposal did not provide a service that was compatible with and appropriate to the local area. 
10. It was out of keeping in a quiet residential neighbourhood.
11. The proposal was a departure from policy as the proposal would not provide 50% of retail units in the parade of shops.
12. An environmental impact assessment had not been undertaken for noise disturbance.
13. In light of the concerns, Members of the Committee were of the view that there was insufficient information in the report to enable Members to make an informed decision on the application. 
14. The Head of Development Management (Head of DM) advised the Committee that officers considered the proposal to be acceptable and complied with the relevant adopted DMD policy. The Council’s policy supported the proposed change of use in the local centre with this level of activity. Traffic assessments were not normally provided for this type of proposal as it would not consider the issue of noise but focus on issues of capacity and highway safety. In this regard, Transportation raised no objection.
15. However, the Head of DM advised that if Members were minded to not accept the officer’s recommendation, they had to be satisfied that the impact of the residential amenity and the increase in the level of traffic movements were unacceptable and could be evidenced. It was acknowledged that there would be a changed to the noise profile in the neighbouring area and there would be some noise and disturbance to the residents.  Litter and refuse however were not planning matters.
16. Councillor Doug Taylor proposed, which was seconded by the Chair, Councillor Sinan Boztas, that the application be deferred as there was clearly insufficient information for Members to make an informed decision until a traffic impact survey to assess the number of deliveries and collections in the neighbouring area had been carried out. Without this, the proposal was detrimental to the residential amenity.

On being put to the vote, the application was deferred unanimously.

AGREED that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee.