Agenda item

Contact:                    Development Control Tel: (01452) 396783

The Senior Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the change of use to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) plus associated minor external alterations at Unit 10, Silverdale Parade, Hillview Road, Hucclecote.

He drew Members’ attention to the representation contained in the late material and advised that the premises did not have the benefit of policy protection.

Sarah Butterfield of Alliance Planning on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Ms Butterfield thanked Members for the opportunity to address the Committee and advised Members that the Applicant operated over 100 similar units across the country. Only pizzas, side orders, drinks and desserts would be served.

She noted that the statutory consultees had raised no objection subject to appropriate conditions and advised that the Applicant appreciated the concerns expressed by local residents and had submitted a noise management plan. She confirmed that all staff would receive training on the need for the plan.

She confirmed that pizzas would be the only food prepared on site and the only equipment used would be a conveyor oven which would not generate smells.

She drew Members’ attention to the additional information provided by the applicant at paragraphs 5.4 and 5.6 of the report and that the Highways Officer had raised no objection.

Councillor Wilson, as Ward Member, expressed his astonishment at the lack of a highways objection and he questioned how many times highways officers had visited the site which he stated was always congested. He explained that lorries blocked Foxwell Drive and cars were constantly arriving at and leaving the Parade.

He stated that the Applicant had indicated that 63 per cent of the unit’s output would be delivered to customers and he questioned how this could be done if there were no parking spaces for delivery vehicles.

Councillor Wilson noted that the applicant had requested hours of operation closing at midnight when the other late opening business, the Co-operative store closed at 10.00pm. He believed that this would go beyond the inconvenience to be expected in a lively vibrant community. The proposed extraction unit was only feet from the nearest house and he asked Members to listen to local opinion as the infrastructure necessary was not there. He believed that the application could be refused on the grounds of inadequate parking, highway safety, traffic impact and the noise associated with the extraction unit.

Councillor Chatterton referred to a similar application in Stroud Road when the Committee had been assured that there would be no problems which was certainly not the case eight months after planning permission had been granted. He had written to the Highways Department in July requesting that they look carefully at these applications as the National Planning Policy Framework required impact to be severe on residential properties before refusal could be justified under the Framework.

Councillor Noakes agreed with Councillor Wilson and stated that the traffic was horrendous twenty years ago. She noted that the premises were previously used as a wool shop which had closed at 5.00pm. She noted that takeaway food was available on the main road and that this proposal was in the wrong location.

Councillor Hilton believed that Hucclecote was well served by takeaways and had a suitable car park but the proposal was in the wrong location. It was close to residential properties with horrendous traffic and parking difficulties. He noted that the proposed delivery vehicles would add to the congestion and the proposal would have a negative impact on adjacent businesses. 

Councillor Hobbs concurred with previous speakers especially in respect of noise from the extraction unit. He believed that the illustrations provided had demonstrated the parking problems. He was advised that the noise management plan would cover delivery vehicles including mopeds and similar vehicles.

Councillor Brown stated that he had lived in Hucclecote for 25 years and expressed concerns regarding noise and smells from the extraction system. He advised that he always cycled to Silverdale Parade due to the traffic and parking difficulties and he urged Members to refuse the application which added nothing to Hucclecote.

The Chair believed that the residual impact of the parking would be severe.

The Solicitor referred Members to paragraph 5.19 and noted that the premises could revert to unrestricted Class A1 use. He asked Members to consider carefully the implications of ‘fall back’ use and he advised Members that Planning Inspectors would expect evidence of a severe residual impact if the application was refused on highway grounds given the lack of objection from the Local Highways Authority.

Councillor Chatterton questioned the lack of objection from Environmental Health if the premises were so close to residential property. He was advised that the Applicant had provided a detailed specification of the equipment to be used and the filtration was sufficient not to impact on the residential properties.

Councillor Smith noted that people would not come to the premises at set times and there would inevitably be peaks and troughs of demand resulting in severe cumulative impacts.

The Solicitor advised that in circumstances where Members were not prepared to accept the recommendation of their Officers and there had been no objections from statutory consultees the Council would be placed at risk. He advised that they should be assured of substantive evidence and noted that parking was more difficult to prove than detriment to amenity as it was covered by other legislation. He advised Members to have regard to the implications of ‘fall back’ use and to the risks of the Council incurring costs.

Councillor Lewis believed that local residents were the evidence the Council needed and the Committee should make a stand in an area already known for traffic problems.

The Development Control Manager suggested two reasons for refusal, against his recommendation, which Members accepted and it was

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1 The proposed change of use, by virtue of the proximity to dwelling houses would result in a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of those properties, contrary to Policy BE.21 of the Gloucester Second Stage Deposit Local Plan 2002 by virtue of noise and disturbance.

2 The proposed change of use would have a residual, cumulative impact which would be severe and contrary to paragraph 32 of The Framework in terms of its transport impacts.