Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following presentation to the Committee:

·       One additional objection had been received after the dispatch of papers concerning the impact of the competition on existing takeaways

·       The William Hill Book makers does not benefit from community use regulations

·       The development would include a takeaway and small customer area to the front

·       There was no specific policy requiring a specific number of takeaways in a particular area. However, the Lawrence Weston Plan indicated that there should be a maximum of five and there were currently three. The definition of a takeaway was set out in the relevant policy and required takeaway as a main use. Therefore, it did not include necessarily include any café or a shop

·       Officers did not believe that the application should be refused on the grounds of an overabundance of takeaways

·       Youth facilities were marked on a plan for the area, including two schools and a playground

·       There were no objections from the Police. Although pollution control had some concerns about noise pollution, a condition was agreed to overcome these

·       There were 10 retail units in the local centre, three of whom had hot food takeaways and all of which were currently occupied and operating

·       Greggs did not fall into the specific use class of a takeaway and in accordance with previous case law was listed as for general retail use. It was closer to the class of outlet listed for sandwich provision

·       Details of the two cafes were provided – one called Smilers Café and the other was a community café

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       Public Health concerns were a material planning issue, particularly in relation to youth facilities.

·       The odour impact for nearbv residents had been deemed acceptable. There were similar extractor fans at the rear of other units on the site. Whilst the units were limited in the way that the extractor units could be installed, pollution control had confirmed that they were acceptable

·       A similar takeaway close to the application site had now changed to a different retail use and had not been a takeaway since 2000. Under existing planning rules, this unit would not be able to re-apply for takeaway use

·       Since there was only one vacant property, if the application was refused, there could potentially be another application in future and there was no guarantee that it would remain in commercial use

·       CCTV was in use for this property and had been deemed acceptable by the Police. It was acknowledged that there was no requirement for CCTV to be provided elsewhere in the area.

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Unless CCTV was provided for the entire area, any issues related to litter might simply move nearby

·       There were a lot of concerns about this application related to litter, odour and the impact on obesity

·       Whilst the committee could not fix opening hours directly as required under Licensing Regulations, it could impose conditions on the development

·       There was a problem with an overconcentration of takeaways in the area and it was near to two schools which would have an impact on obesity levels. In addition, the application did not take into account the Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore, it should be opposed

·       The application should be opposed as it is against the spirit of the Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Plan

It was moved by Councillor Richard Eddy, seconded by Councillor Fabian Breckels and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be refused on the grounds of the following:

•     The overconcentration of takeaways that it would create

•     The impact on Public Health

•     Litter

•     It is contrary to the Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Plan