Agenda item

Variation of Condition 4 (hours of operation) on planning permission 4/09/00088/FPA to extend opening hours to 3am 7 days a week (existing consent allows Friday and Saturday till 3am only with remainder of week till 11pm)

The Planning Officer, S Hyde gave a detailed presentation on the reports relating to the abovementioned planning applications, copies of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.  The applications were for:

(d) Wok Next, 97 Claypath – Variation of Condition 5 (hours of operation) of planning permission 4/11/00713/FPA from 9am – 11pm Monday – Sunday to 9am – 11pm Sunday – Thursday and 9am – 3 am Friday – Saturday.

(e) Pizza Uno, 92 Claypath – Variation of Condition 4 (hours of operation) of planning permission 4/09/00251/FPA to extend opening hours from 11pm to 3am seven days a week.

(f) Urban Oven, 97 Claypath – Opening hours to be extended from 11pm to 3am seven days a week.

(g) Falafel Al Hana, 86 Claypath – Variation of Condition 4 (hours of operation) of planning permission 4/09/00088/FPA to extend opening hours to 3am seven days a week (existing consent allows Friday and Saturday until 3am only with the remainder of the week until 11pm).

The Planning Officer noted the applications were recommended for refusal.

Members noted the applications were brought to Committee at the request of Councillor D Freeman one of the Local Members for the area. 

The Committee noted that there had been issues in terms of enforcement of the existing conditions, with Police, together with colleagues within the Harm Reduction Unit (HRU), having noted the effect of late night opening of these fast food takeaways in terms of Police resources and adverse impact upon local residents. 

In referring to a plan, the Planning Officer reminded Members that 97 Claypath was the property closest to the nearby nightclubs and that 86, 92 and 94 Claypath had residential properties above them, not linked to the businesses below.  It was added that the former “Kwik Fit” property on the opposite side of Claypath had a planning approval for a 400 bed student accommodation and there were a number of other nearby properties with students, and elderly residents nearby. 

The Planning Officer noted there had been strong objection from Durham Constabulary in terms of residential amenity and public safety.  It was added that Environmental Health had noted that there was potential for a statutory nuisance in terms of noise.  There had been no objections in terms of highways.  It was explained that there had been 22 letters of objection from individuals and the City of Durham Trust and St. Nicholas Community Forum citing the impact on residential amenity. 

The Planning Officer noted a letter of objection received from Roberta Blackman-Woods MP received after the report was circulated to Members, which reiterated the loss of residential amenity and also cited Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (Promoting Healthier Communities) which states that planning decisions should aim to promote “safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion”.  The Planning Officer noted Officers would ask to add this to the refusal reasons, should Members decide to refuse any or all of the applications.  It was added that these applications were for variations in opening hours and represented no physical works, and therefore there was no impact upon the Conservation Area.

The Chairman noted there were no registered Speakers and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application.

Councillor D Freeman noted that three of the premises only had existing permission to remain open until 11.00pm, and therefore in breach of their existing consents.  Councillor D Freeman accepted that if their situation was not regularised, with permissions given until 3.00am then this would affect their businesses.  However, Councillor D Freeman noted that local residents, a potential additional 400 students and a nearby 43 bed elderly persons complex would all be affected, as set out in paragraph 34 of the report stating “the operation of late night refreshment houses into the early hours of the morning is in direct conflict with residential amenity”.  Councillor D Freeman noted that Environmental Health and Consumer Protection, Durham Constabulary, local Residents’ Associations and individual residents all objected to the applications.  Councillor D Freeman added that outside of these applications the removal of the taxi rank and other measures undertaken had been appreciated and welcomed.  Councillor D Freeman added that therefore he supported the refusal of the applications based on the reasons set out in the report and the additional point as mentioned by the Planning Officer.

Councillor B Moir noted he had moved away from Durham some years ago and upon returning to the City had in some sense felt he had gone “back to the future” in terms of the impact of the night time economy on areas such as lower Claypath, with “fly-blown litter” and noise nuisance. 

Councillor B Moir added that while these premises were businesses and refusing the applications could affect them, in a City with many students and with a 400 bed student accommodation granted for the property opposite he felt takeaway food businesses should be able to make money in this area without having to stay open until 3am.  Councillor B Moir agreed with Councillor D Freeman and supported the Officer’s recommendations for refusal. 

Councillor J Lethbridge added that it was referred to within comments from the University that even students needed sleep, as did residents, and therefore he welcomed the Officer’s reports and supported the recommendations for refusal.

Councillor M Davinson noted that one of the premises, 86 Claypath, already had permission to operate until 3.00am on Fridays and Saturdays and asked would this particular establishment become a magnet for people coming out of nightclubs and were there any actions that could be taken by Durham Constabulary or the Council’s Licensing Section.  The Planning Officer reiterated that this premises did have permission until 3.00am and the situation would be monitored by Police and Licensing colleagues, however, having fewer premises open at the later times may reduce the impact on residents.  Councillor P Conway added that he too supported the Officer’s recommendations within the reports.

The Chairman asked for Members to consider each of the applications separately, as set out within their individual reports, taking into account the additional information presented by the Planning Officer in her presentation.

(d) DM/16/01017/VOC - Wok Next, 97 Claypath, Durham, DH1 1RG

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, and an additional reason of being contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

(e) DM/16/01268/VOC - Pizza Uno, 92 Claypath, Durham, DH1 1RG

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, and an additional reason of being contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

(f) DM/16/01331/VOC - Urban Oven, 94 Claypath, Durham, DH1 1RG

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, and an additional reason of being contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

(g) Falafel Al Hana, 86 Claypath, Durham, DH1 1RG

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee, and an additional reason of being contrary to Paragraph 69 of the NPPF.