The Committee is asked to consider Document “N” which  outlines a full planning application requesting permission for the change of use of the ground floor at 33 Lilycroft Road from a betting shop (sui generis) to hot food takeaway (use class A5) with the installation of extraction duct and jet cowl to the rear.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director’s report.

(Mohammed Yousuf – 01274 433950)

The Committee was asked to consider Document “N” which outlined a full planning application requesting permission for the change of use of the ground floor at 33 Lilycroft Road from a betting shop (sui generis) to hot food takeaway (use class A5) with the installation of extraction duct and jet cowl to the rear.

The Assistant Director gave a detailed overview of the planning application, showing plans, photographs of the proposed site, layout and proposed arrangements in relation to the storage of the bins and summarising the representations that had been received.  One letter of objection had been received citing that there were already too many takeaway establishments in the vicinity, resulting in parking and litter issues. Concerns were also expressed in relation to its proximity to Lillycroft Primary School.

That Assistant Director added that the site was located in close proximity to schools and youth facilities and proposed a use that raised a number of health concerns. The location was not within a designated centre and was contrary to principle 2 of the Council’s adopted Hot Food Takeaway SPD which sought  to minimise the negative impacts of hot food takeaways on childhood health.

The proposed use would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in the unit above the proposed takeaway and it was likely to result in additional noise, waste and general disturbance which are generally related to uses such as that proposed here. This is contrary to Policies DS5 and EN8 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and principle 4 of the Hot Food Takeaway Supplementary Planning Document

Waste storage facilities for the proposed use are inadequate and fail to demonstrate how they can be stored safely and securely within the curtilage of the site, and clear of a public highway causing harm to highway safety and would impact on the ability of vehicles to move freely on the highway, which is contrary to Policies DS4 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

In response to a question regarding storage and maintenance to the rear of the property, it was explained that currently the rear access was unadopted and that bin storage did not form part of this application proposal, nor had the applicant demonstrated that it was within in his ownership.

The applicants agent was present at the meeting and stated the following points during his submission:

That 33 Lilycroft Road was vacated by a bookmaker in February, it is part of an established commercial row and it is important that it is brought back into use, with viable options being limited by the health of the retail sector.

The recommended reasons for refusal concern:

1. proximity to schools and conflict with the Hot Food Takeaways SPD;

2. impact on the residential amenity of those occupying the first floor flat; and,

3. in adequate bin storage facilities. 

I will address each issue in order.

1. Conflict with the hot food takeaways SPD

National Planning Practice Guidance states:

“Supplementary planning documents should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan. As they do not form part of the development plan, they cannot introduce new planning policies…”.

The recommended reason for refusal implies that controls over the locations of new takeaways are supplementary to Core Strategy policy DS5. However, this policy makes no reference to health, wellbeing, food or takeaways. In my opinion, the SPD clearly seeks to introduce new and draconian planning policy, contrary to government requirements. In my opinion, it should therefore be applied with caution and afforded limited weight in the decision-making process.

Even where SPD’s clearly support adopted planning policy, it is important to remember that their content is not policy but advice or guidance on the implementation of policy. Guidance set out in SPD’s must therefore be applied with regard to the wording and objectives of the policy it supports. As the SPD does not clearly support any adopted local planning policy such a judgement cannot be made, which is problematic. However, we can consider the objectives underpinning principle 2 of the SPD, which is to limit the availability of takeaway food to school children.

I respectfully suggest that pupils of the nearby junior schools are unlikely to frequent the takeaway on a regular basis. And that the aim underpinning principle 2 could be upheld by a planning condition that does not allow food sales before 5 pm, preventing school children from purchasing food during lunch-times and after school.

Furthermore, the Applicant has identified an occupant who is to specialise in grilled food and fruit juices, thereby providing a healthier option. It is too simple to classify all takeaway food as being nutritionally poor and detrimental to health, with health-conscious takeaways, often offering extensive vegetarian or vegan options, set to become more popular.

2. Residential amenity of those occupying the first floor flat

The planning application makes clear that the property would be let as a whole and that the flat, which is within the same ownership, would only be occupied by employees or management of the business. This is a common and clearly acceptable arrangement that can and should be ensured by planning condition.

3. Inadequate bin storage

It is agreed that existing on-street bin storage arrangements are unsatisfactory. For this reason, the Applicant has proposed an amended red line application boundary and that bins are stored within the rear yard of 35 Lilycroft Road, which is attached to number 33 and also within their ownership. The rear yard would essentially become shared. However, your Officer’s have refused to accept this amendment. The amended plan should be on file, the arrangements are clearly acceptable, and I urge members to determine the application on this basis.

In conclusion the property is vacant, part of an established commercial row and there are no public objections to the application that is supported by a Ward Councillor.

I respectfully urge the committee exercise their own judgement and approve the application, subject to conditions including:

1. a 5 pm opening time to prevent school children frequenting the premises during lunch-times and after school;

2. an occupancy restriction linking the ground floor takeaway with the first floor flat, which is within the same ownership; and,

3. the storage of bins off-street within the rear yard of 35 Lilycroft Road, which is also within the same ownership.

In response to the issues raised by the applicant’s agent, the Assistant Director stressed that he had not seen any details submitted in advance of today’s meeting in relation to bin storage, flat occupancy and opening times that would make him change his recommendations for refusal on the grounds stated in the report.

In relation to the Supplementary Planning Design guidance, it was stressed by the Council’s legal representative that it was a material planning consideration and that Members should therefore give it due weight in determining the application before them.  In addition Members would have to be satisfied regarding the assertion made by the applicants’ agent pertaining to ownership and tenancy arrangements.  In any case any tenancy could not be conditioned to those employed by the takeaway.

A Member suggested that the application should be deferred to allow the issues raised by the applicant’s agent to be clarified; however the majority of Members were minded to refuse the application in line with the officers recommendation, and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning.

ACTION: Assistant Director Transportation Design and Planning