Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Proposed Change of Use from florist to takeaway and construction of flue.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the proposed change of use from florist to takeaway and construction of a flue at 126, Tredworth Road.

He drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained an additional proposed condition.

He advised that the applicant had amended the plans to move the flue as far back from the street frontage as possible. The applicant had also proposed to clad the flue in glass reinforced plastic and paint the top of the flue to ensure that it blended in with the side elevation as much as possible.

Dr Kirby addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Dr Kirby stated that he had found the Council’s website to be deeply unfriendly to users. He advised that he ran a small business and that he was a landlord owning much of the property in the vicinity.

He believed that the proposed use would cause disruption and increase traffic. The existing use as a florist was a gentler trade generated fewer journeys than a takeaway.

The takeaway would generate white noise from the machinery and smells from the extraction plant.

He expressed concerns regarding traffic which was exacerbated by illegal parking around the dangerous junction which already saw serious accidents at regular intervals. He believed there was a disconnection between the perceptions and reality of the traffic situation.

Councillor Hobbs expressed concerns regarding increased traffic generation and poor parking provision. He referred to the convenience store on the other side of Tredworth Road and was not convinced that the highway engineers were correct.

Councillor Etheridge used Tredworth Road on a regular basis and it frequently took ten or twelve minutes to pass through the junction with a large vehicle.

The Development Control Manager referred to Dr Kirby’s comments regarding the existing use as a florist. He advised that the premises had the benefit of permitted general Class A1 open retail use and could be used lawfully for any use within that Class. He noted that the proposed takeaway would not be open during the morning peak period and advised Members that the decision should be made on the basis that the existing parking restrictions were complied with.    

Councillor Toleman noted that the Committee would have to take note of t5he highway officer’s views and the future of the takeaway would be determined by market forces.

Councillor McLellan believed that more people would drive to a takeaway than a general convenience store.

Councillor Smith believed it unlikely that the premises would revert to a convenience store as one existed over the road. She expressed concerns that illegally parked cars could obstruct the view of the road for children using the pedestrian crossing.

The Vice Chair asked where delivery vehicles and staff would be able to park.

The Solicitor advised the Committee to determine the application on planning grounds not on enforcement issues and he noted the need for Members to provide robust reasons should they be minded to refuse the application.

Councillor Brown stated that parking was permitted on double yellow klines for fifteen minutes for loading and unloading.

Councillor Hilton noted that people would park near the controlled pedestrian crossing creating a road safety hazard.

Members agreed to defer the application as there was insufficient information on road safety with particular reference to the safety of pedestrians.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred as there was insufficient information on road safety with particular reference to the safety of pedestrians.