Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 Pursuant to Planning Permission Reference CE/13/00900/FPA to allow continuous opening between 11.00 and 21.00 Monday to Sunday.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding an application for the variation of condition 2, pursuant to planning permission reference CE/13/00900/FPA to allow continuous opening between 11.00 and 21.00 Monday to Sunday (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

In making his presentation the Principal Planning Officer advised that since the report had been circulated an additional objection to the application had been received which reiterated issues already raised relating to impact on residential amenity, impact on the character of the area, noise, smells, loss of privacy and impact on the environment.

Councillor R Crute, local Member addressed the Committee on behalf of Councillor L Pounder and residents.

Residents were happy that this was a thriving business but felt that a balance should be struck which would allow the business to continue to be successful but which also protected the amenity of residents.

The increased traffic generation and parking would compromise the safety of pedestrians and motorists. Traffic along this road had increased in recent years and allowing the applicant to open the extra hours would exacerbate these problems. Given the planning history he was concerned that Planning Officers were now of the view that the proposed extension would not have a detrimental impact on residents.

He referred Members to the condition imposed by the Inspector at appeal which limited opening hours and stated that it would be unfair on residents if this was waived.

The Principal Planning Officer was mindful of the concerns of local Members and residents. The Inspector limited opening times in accordance with the hours the business operated at that time, and planning consent had been granted on that basis. This did not prevent the applicant from submitting an application to vary the opening hours.

There was no real evidence that extra problems would be caused in the middle part of the day. The Coast Road was busy at all times and he invited the Highways Officer to address the concerns expressed about traffic and parking.

The Highways Officer referred Members to paragraph 41 in the report which addressed the Inspector’s assessment of highways issues in the original application for change of use, and the three reasons for allowing the appeal. These were relevant to the consideration of this application and from a highways point of view the additional opening hours were potentially in the quietest part of the day. In view of this and taking into account the reasons for the Inspector’s decision, there were no strong highway grounds to refuse the application.

In response to a question from Councillor Clark about opening times, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the applicant was entitled to open seven days a week in accordance with the current planning consent.

Councillor Laing commented on the highways issues, confirming that this was a very busy road, having travelled it on a regular basis, and that parking was a problem along this stretch. The situation was made worse in the summer months.

Councillor Kay commented on the planning history linked to this site and the events that had resulted in an appeal, and was of the view that an extra two and a half hours would cause a detrimental impact on residential amenity. He therefore believed that the condition imposed by the Inspector with regard to opening hours should be adhered to.

Councillor Clark echoed these views adding that if the premises opened in the afternoon this would coincide with school traffic, exacerbating the vehicular and parking problems already experienced. She was also concerned about the impact the extended opening hours would have on residential amenity, particularly on a Sunday.

Moved by Councillor Clark and seconded by Councillor Laing it was

Resolved:

That the application be refused as the proposal would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.