The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways will submit a report (Document “AR”) which sets out a full planning application  for the change of use of 501 Great Horton Road from a Class E shop to a sui generis hot food takeaway. 

Recommended-

That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to Document “AR”.

                                                            (Mark Hutchinson – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “AR”) which set out a full planning application  for the change of use of 501 Great Horton Road from a Class E shop to a sui generis hot food takeaway. 

Members were shown images of a plan of the area, including the boundary of the district centre, within which this site fell. Floor plans of the property were also shown, along with images of the existing and proposed elevation. It was highlighted that very few external changes were proposed, a vent for the extraction system being the main one.

The Assistant Director advised that a previous application had been refused due to the visual harm that would have been caused by a large external flue and because of conflict between the use of the ground and first floors of the property, however both those issues had now been resolved so the application was now recommended for approval, notwithstanding the concerns of objectors about an overconcentration of hot food takeaways in this area.

In response to a question from a member, the Assistant Director stated that there were a number of hot food takeaways in the area but that he did not consider them to be over dominating the street.

The member then asked about parking for staff and customers and was informed that the standard applied was one space per ten square metres of premises and that this was considered to be a sustainable location. It was stressed that it was a small shop and that most customers would be likely to live nearby.

The Principal Highways Engineer also confirmed that there were restrictions nearby to prevent indiscriminate parking and that there was on-street parking for customer use. As the road was over ten metres wide, it would still be safe to use and the barriers immediately in front of the premises dissuaded unsafe parking and he therefore supported the application.

The Chair queried where the nearest schools and youth centres were located and was advised of several in the vicinity but that the limit on proximity to schools applied only outside the designated centre.

A local resident joined the meeting and stated that the area was always busy and parking was difficult. There was also a very significant littering problem due to the take away premises already in operation. He referred to the petition that he had provided on behalf of his fellow local residents who were also very upset by the on-going problems and the issues of littering. He also stated that the upstairs flat was currently occupied.

The Assistant Director responded to state that issues of littering and anti social behaviour were the responsibility of the licensing authority rather than the planning authority, also that the issue of land ownership and the occupation of the flat did not prevent consideration of this application.

An objection from a local councillor who was unable to attend the meeting had been circulated to all members, and at the request of one of them, it was read out in full. The objection contained concerns about parking and fast food premises attracting youths, anti social behaviour, littering and vermin. It also highlighted that an environmental visual audit had been undertaken by the Police which had stated that fast food takeaways in this area were in excess and that there were too many to support the community. The audit had concluded that further fast food premises would cause problems in an area already saturated with such premises.

The Assistant Director outlined the policy on overconcentration and explained that Members were entitled to refer to it in making their decision even though it had not been his recommendation.

A member asked his colleagues to consider very carefully the Police comments in the local councillor’s email as he was also aware of Police concerns about this locality. Several of his colleague members concurred with those concerns about the impact of another hot food takeaway in this area.

Resolved-

That the application be refused.

Reason – this application would result in an overconcentration of hot food takeaway premises in the area, causing harm to the vitality of the area and to residential amenity. This would be contrary to Policies EN8 and DS5 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Hot Food Takeaways Supplementary Planning Document.

ACTION: Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways