Agenda item

Councillor Poultney left the meeting at 15:18

Officer’s presentation:

a.       The application is for change of use of part of shop area from Retail to Take Away; not within a designated centre; it is a side extension to provide the additional space for kitchen area, and customer area with appropriate storage; operating from Noon to 10.30pm.

b.       The consultation resulted in 3 replies 2 objections and 1 letter in support; concerns with regards to parking; odour; density.

c.       The proposed takeaway is within 400 metre radius of Kingfisher School; Policy DM10 states that takeaways in close proximity to school and youth facilities are not permitted as they would likely influence behaviour harmful to health or promotion of healthy lifestyles.

d.       Pollution Control were unable to make a determination on the matter of noise arising from the extraction equipment and odour control.  Although they are satisfied that there are no over concentration of takeaways within the area, no concerns with regards litter or late-night activity.

e.       Highway Safety: without the necessary traffic management report it was not possible to assess the impact of the potential increase of private car use and delivery vehicles; to make a final determination on the necessary mitigations to be applied.

f.        Officers looked to committee to refuse the application due to the Health impacts and unresolved Highway safety issues as detailed in the report.

Questions for Clarification:

g.       Members wondered why the application was with them for consideration.  Officers advised that they could not come to an agreement with the applicant and his representative on the development.  They were looking for them to provide a transport report and parking survey; site visits were made in March and April; attempts made to engage with the applicant but without success.

h.       The reports required must be undertaken by known accredited professionals and for this reason would result in additional expense for the developer.  The Transport Consultant would report on the anticipated trips and vehicle movement; this would lead to a determination on the whether the current kerbside area would meet demand; An acoustic consultant would need to report on the mechanical noise associated with the business.

i.         Members noted the petition in support and sought assurance that the information being sought from the applicant was being asked of all making similar applications; enquired whether any small business support was available to the applicant.

j.         Officers confirmed that all such applications had to be considered in line with prevailing policy; that the small business economic team function did not cover this type of business.

Debate

k.       Cllr Brown: confirmed that he was in support of small business and if the applicant had delivered all reports he would have voted to grant.

l.         Cllr Francis: keen to support small business and although had sympathy for the applicant, would encourage him to complete the task required.

m.     Chair stated that committee was supportive of small businesses and would encourage the applicant to work with the planning department to move the application forward.

n.       Chair moved, seconded by Cllr Francis, that members support the Officers reasons for refusal, when put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: (6 for; 1 Abstain) That the applicant be refused for the reasons set out in the report