Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00403/S73 151C BEARTON ROAD, HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG5 1UB

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Variation of Condition 3 (to allow a limited and controlled extension of operating hours on Sundays, restricted to delivery-only takeaway service between 16:00 and 20:00) of planning permission 95/00276/1 granted 24.05.1995.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/00403/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 1 hour 26 minutes 05 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised there were no updates to the report, however clarified for Members that:

 

·       This application was only to consider an extension of opening hours between 4-8pm on Sundays.

·       Whilst issues were acknowledged at a neighbouring business, this application should be assessed on its own merits and no objections had been received from Environmental Health.

·       The application was for a 12-month temporary period, before consideration of a permanent arrangement.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00403/S73 accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Louise Peace, the Senior Planning Officer advised that after the 12-month period, an application would be required to make the changes to the operating hours permanent. This would only return to the Planning Control Committee for consideration if it was called-in by a Ward Member.

 

The Chair invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ian Albert, to speak against the application. Councillor Albert thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       There were many high quality hospitality businesses in Hitchin, of which this was one, and given the current viability of the hospitality sector, this was not an attempt to prevent business.

·       There have historically been three businesses in this area of Bearton Road, with several attempts at other sites having been rejected.

·       It was sensible that this was a proposed 12-month trial.

·       The biggest impact would be on Brampton Park Road residents, which was where delivery vehicles parked to wait for orders. There was also a large amount of noise from kitchens, which it should be acknowledged the Applicant tonight was already taking steps to address at his premises.

·       It was proposed that only in house drivers would be used, but the business was available through JustEat and Uber Eats. This position needed to be clarified.

·       There was an increased risk to pedestrians.

·       Proposed Sunday hours would impact on residents right to private enjoyment, especially considering the cumulative effects in this area.

·       Mitigations should be put in place to reduce harm to residents where possible.

·       Whilst there were dangers of a precedent being set by approving this application, the inclusion of a trial period and delivery only service was welcomed.

·       Some further clarification was required around the rear door of the premises and whether it would only use in house delivery drivers.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Strong for their presentation and invited the Applicant, Mr Abdul Mummin, to speak in support of the application. Mr Mummin thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·       He had attended the meeting with a hope that a small business would be given the opportunity to thrive in Hitchin.

·       Comments on the rear door have been looked at and acted on, with the door now required to remain closed and the shed at the rear should only be opened once on arrival and once at the end of the shift.

·       He operated several other sites under the same name and part of the business ethos was ensuring residents were happy to ensure that the business could survive.

·       They could use external delivery drivers, but they would not always meet the ethics of the business and so it was decided that only in house delivery drivers would be used to ensure standards of service.

·       As part of this, it was expected that only one delivery driver would be required on a Sunday evening, with an expected 12 orders over the additional 4 hour opening period.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Claire Strong, Mr Mummin advised that the rear door did not currently have a soft-closing feature installed, but this could be done.

 

In response to points raised during the public participation, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that conditions in relation to the rear door and parking of delivery drivers had been considered but was not enforceable and therefore had not been included.

 

In response to a further question from Councillor Clare Billing, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the temporary permission would allow for any issues during this period to be raised and investigated by Environmental Health. When a permanent application was received, should complaints have been made during the temporary period, these would be documented and considered as part of the permanent application process.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason, as Chair, proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Claire Strong

 

Points raised during the debate included that:

 

·       It was a well run takeaway business and, whilst not preferrable to all immediate neighbours, it would not create unacceptable harm.

·       The times proposed were still sociable and not late night, there would be one in-house delivery driver, it would operate as delivery only and was for a 12-month period.

·       The Applicant has confirmed that he would explore changes to the rear door.

·       If noises were reported from the rear door, then this would be an indication that it had been deliberately left open.

·       There was apprehension about applying too much micro-detail onto businesses through condition.

 

In response to points raised during the debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that as no objections have been received from the Environmental Health team it would not be possible to impose conditions relating to the noise of the rear door on this application.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Tom Tyson, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the application was for a change to the operating hours, but the intensity of use would be considered when a permanent application was made in a year. If the intensity was such that complaints were received, then these would be lodged as objections on the permanent application and a different recommendation may be proposed. 

 

Having been proposed and seconded and following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/00403/S73 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Supporting documents: