Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Part change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to create separate Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway). Alterations to shopfront and erection of external fume extraction flue.

RESOLVED: That application 18/00278/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

 

By way of its size and design the proposed external flue would fail to improve the character or quality of the area or the way it functions and thereby respond poorly to the site's local context. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SP9 and D1 of the North Hertfordshire Emerging Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

A short comfort break was taken at this point.

Part change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to create separate Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway). Alterations to shopfront and erection of external fume extraction flue.

 

The Development Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 18/00278/FPsupported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

The Development Officer advised that Members that the proposal was to sub-divide the building, with part of it becoming a hot food outlet which would require external alterations and an external flue that would rise to roof level to discharge.

 

Environmental Health had no objection subject to conditions regarding noise, extraction and operating hours and Highways had raised no objection.

 

He advised that, on balance, he recommended that the proposal be granted.

 

Ms Monika Shieff and Ms Michelle Harris thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 18/00278/FP.

 

Ms Shieff advised Members that she had four objections, being smell, noise, fire and vermin.

 

As the owner of the flat directly above the proposed fish and chip shop, the smell would be unbearable, as it would be directly below her bedroom window.

 

The smell would be constant and would no doubt ruin her furniture, clothes etc.

 

The smell of fish and fat would be carried throughout the neighbourhood as the extractor would not remove it completely.

 

The extractor was proposed to be erected on the side of her flat, which gave passageway to both flats above and this would send noise vibrations into the second bedroom, bathroom and corridor.

 

The proposed new door to the takeaway was located directly below the window of the main bedroom and the fish and chip counter directly under the second bedroom.

 

The danger of fire in a place that used a big fryer was undeniable and there was no escape route for Nos 5 and 7 in the case of fire.

 

These things were examples of how a change of use would affect her personally, however the development would have an effect on the whole neighbourhood, as the passageway leading to Nos 5 and 7 had long been the target of vandalism, graffiti and litter, the Police, Priory School, Hightown Housing and the Council were all aware of these problems.

 

In the past she had approached the owners of the Spar shop regarding the rubbish that was always flying around the shop and received the response that it was the Council’s problem.

 

Given that the owners of the proposed takeaway had proved not to be concerned with cleanliness or any consideration towards the neighbourhood, the vermin that such a shop would create was undeniable.

 

Ms Harris informed Members that the London Regional Director of Public Health England stated “Our high streets are increasingly saturated with takeaways and our school children consume too much unhealthy food”.

 

It was well documented that, as a nation, the UK had a massive problem with increasing levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes. A third of children were overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school, with Britain’s obesity rates the worst in Western Europe and rising faster than those in the USA.

 

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health was calling for fast food outlets to be banned from operating within 400 metres of every school in the country in the Government’s Childhood Obesity Strategy, that was due to be published this summer. With the Mayor of London supporting this move and a larger percentage of councils already implementing this policy, she believed this would happen,

 

Walkjogrun.net showed walking times to Our Lady School, Strathmore School and Priory School were all well within 5 minutes of the premises.

 

Children lived in Lammas Mead, one had been knocked over and cars had been damaged by the vehicles visiting the shop.

 

The Highway Development Control Manager noted that parking was not within the Council’s parking standards and suggested that parking bays could be used to the side of the flats. but these bays were used by residents and she had worked out that at least 84 flats and 20 houses used approximately 200 metres of highway.

 

There were already issues with a shop in the area, with shop users parking on street corners, across driveways and even abandoned in the road whilst they nipped into the shop. They did not care who they annoyed.

 

If there was a hot food outlet here the problems would be exacerbated as there would be more customers, most arriving by car in the evening, when residents were already parked for the night.

 

Having studied the plans, she had serious questions about the health and safety of anyone living above. The proposed fire exit door for the shop was at the bottom of the stairwell leading from the flats above, if this door was open the exit for residents of the flats would be blocked and there was no other means of escape.

 

Disregard for safety was highlighted by the current use of trailing domestic extension leads used to power two large commercial retail freezers by the owner of the next-door shop.

 

There was also anti-social behaviour. She advised that her son used to work in a small shop locally where there were a couple of takeaways. He saw drug dealing frequently on the street outside, drawn to the area as both alcohol and ready-made food were available.

 

She advised that she was shocked to find that Wrexham, often on the list of worst places to lice in the UK, had a Council policy of no new takeaways in predominantly residential areas, in part due to anti-social behaviour associated with those outlets, yet Hitchin, regularly one of the top 10 places to live, did not have a similar policy.

 

Ms Harris concluded by stating that she found this disturbing and disrespectful towards people who funded the Council’s business ie the residents and tax payers.

 

Councillor Ian Albert, Councillor Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 18/00278/FP.

 

Councillor Albert queried what explanation could be given to explain how this would complement the function and character of the area and made the following points:

 

·                There had been 22 objections to the application with residents considering that this would be a blight on the neighbourhood.

·                No supporting statements had been received, not even from the applicant.

·                There was no need for this takeaway as there were other similar facilities within walking distance.

·                The proposed extractor was unsightly and would make the entrance to the flats above unwelcoming.

·                The extractor would likely cause noise and disturbance in the flats above and smells would be inevitable, despite any conditions applied.

·                The proposed new door to the takeaway was located immediately beneath the flats and there was already evidence of rubbish, vandalism and noise associated with the existing shop.

·                The fire door would block the stairs to the flat if left open.

·                People already used the stairs to sit on and this would increase if there was a takeaway.

·                Litter was already a problem and this would get worse.

·                There was a lot of conclusive evidence regarding current anti-social behaviour, with reports to the Police, Hightown Housing and others and this would only increase.

·                Traffic and parking in the area was a problem as was vehicle damage and road accidents

·                Proposed opening hours were too long and for 7 days a week This was not right and, if the application were granted, consideration should be given to reduced opening hours.

·                There was often burning of items in the yard next to the shop and the immediate area was often untidy and messy and this would increase.

·                There had already been vermin related issues, which would be exacerbated.

·                There had been drug taking and drinking on the steps to the flats.

 

Councillor Albert stated that for all of these reasons this application should be rejected.

 

Councillor Albert concluded by stating that the NPPF talked about healthy communities and safe and accessible environments. It also mentions crime and disorder and that the fear of crime should not undermine quality of life. This application would undermine quality of life for residents.

 

He hoped that Members would reject the application or, at the very least, reduce the proposed opening hours.

 

Members queried how far the nearest takeaway was from this site and expressed concern about the littering.

 

Councillor Albert advised that the nearest takeaway was approximately 800 yards away and that littering problems in the area would likely increase with the introduction of a takeaway.

 

The Development Officer advised that a number of the matters mentioned were not material to the decision including fire safety and public health issues.

 

 Members acknowledged the comments made by objectors regarding noise, litter and traffic and there was some discussion regarding the lack of need for another takeaway in this area and the unsightliness of the flue.

 

The Planning Lawyer advised that no statutory consultees had objected to the application and, if Members were minded to refuse planning permission, reasons would be required for that refusal.

 

The Development Officer advised that refusal on grounds of design was a planning reason.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused permission by reason of size, design and failure to improve the character of the area.

 

RESOLVED: That application 18/00278/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

 

By way of its size and design the proposed external flue would fail to improve the character or quality of the area or the way it functions and thereby respond poorly to the site's local context. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SP9 and D1 of the North Hertfordshire Emerging Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

A short comfort break was taken at this point.