Agenda item

Change of use from clinic to hot food take-away at ground floor and office above.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer which consisted of an application for the change of use from a Clinic, to a hot food takeaway at ground floor level and office at first floor level, at 21 Church Street, Coxhoe (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer confirmed that Members had visited the site earlier that day and gave a detailed presentation of the application site, including site location plans, site photographs and aerial photographs of the site.

The Planning Officer confirmed that since the report had been published two further objections had been received, one from a local resident and one from MP Blackman-Woods.

Ms K Simpson on behalf of Coxhoe Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  She confirmed that a high number of concerns had been expressed at a recent meeting and were mainly in relation to noise, highways and impact on local businesses.  Coxhoe already had several takeaway establishments and an additional one would not only have an impact on other well-established hot food takeaways, but it would impact on surrounding traders.  The Parish Council worked alongside businesses to improve services however it was not felt that the locality would benefit from another hot food takeaway.

Councillor Blakey, Local Member, confirmed that the area had benefitted significantly over the years with a lot of support from the AAP and investment by local businesses.  Coxhoe had a high street which offered a wide range of services and a pleasant shopping experience.  She had counted eleven hot food establishments within half a mile.

Councillor Blakey referred to the reference to highway safety as contravening the County Durham Local Plan and she was surprised at the lack of comments from Durham Constabulary as she was aware of 100 anti-social behaviour reports surrounding youths causing major disturbances at a hot food takeaway no more than 50 yards from the application site.

Councillor Blakey referred to the impact on the environment should the application be approved and it was clear that without rear access, waste would need to be disposed via a small passageway in between the two properties.  She queried the  frequency of the waste collections and wondered how long would bins be left out on the high street with decomposing food waste before being collected.

Finally, Councillor Blakey summed up that the development would be no benefit to the high street and she could only anticipate the impact it would have on other businesses in the area.  She hoped the Committee would agree with her and refuse the application.

Councillor Dunn, Local Member, confirmed that this was the central part of the high street and had a different character to the other areas, and also different hours of business.  Shops in this area did not go beyond late afternoon.  There were already more than enough hot food takeaways on the high street, and this was not the right type of business to replace a former baby clinic.

In addition Councillor Dunn shared concern about the storage and disposal of waste.  To the rear of the property was a small yard with no rear exit.  The wall abutted the church yard and there was a narrow passageway in between the two properties which was not big enough for a large commercial bin.  He assumed therefore that the waste would be stored in multiple domestic sized bins and this combined with the fumes from the extraction unit at the rear of the property, would affect both residential properties at either side of the application site.

Councillor McKeon, Local Member, indicated that the previous use and the proposed use demonstrated the incompatibility in this part of the high street.  She fully agreed with the objections with regards to highways safety and environmental impact on neighbouring residents and businesses, however she also wished to draw attention to the abutting church yard.  This was a church yard which contained common wealth war graves and the proposed development was not appropriate.

Ms McDonnell was objecting as a local resident and business owner and advised that she was at risk of losing both should the application be approved.  Coxhoe had a successful high street and Ms McDonnell would normally support development that would add to the vibrancy and mix of the area, however this proposal would only have a detrimental impact.  Not only would it affect the residents who live at either side of the property, but also the businesses in the immediate vicinity.  There was a successful bridal boutique that would undoubtedly suffer due to the smells emitted from a hot food takeaway. 

No extractor would remove all of the odour and in addition there were two other businesses which sold soft furnishings, clothes and accessories – they were also at risk of closing or relocating.  This proposal would have a detrimental effect on the economy as it would drive businesses away.

Ms McDonnell added that she was aware that the applicant had already secured a tenant which had signed a 3 year lease and she queried the logic behind a change of use to a hot food establishment.

Referring to parking issues, Ms McDonnell confirmed that there were existing problems which had been well documented at public meetings.  There were issues with funeral vehicles gaining access to the Church and people regularly misusing the two disabled bays.  Ms McDonnell confirmed that she had personally reported antisocial behaviour and littering from large groups of youths and she added that they used appalling language and behaved in an intimidating manner.  She often had to clean up waste and sweep the footpath on a morning.  To approve another takeaway would increase waste, parking issues, antisocial behaviour and she envisaged three businesses being forced to close.

The Planning Officer responded to the comments first by confirming that Members had queried the issue of waste disposal on the site visit earlier that day.  She had been unable to contact the Applicant however, she had contacted the Councils refuse and recycling team who confirmed that there were various size commercial waste bins and at least two of them would fit down the small passageway between the properties.

Councillor Jopling stated that she had personally experienced the issues of having a commercial property with little or no outdoor bin space and had been required to submit a waste management plan.  She admitted she did not know the area well, but she sympathised with the objectors and could not see how the proposal would aid regeneration in the area.

Councillor Coult had visited the site and echoed concerns with regards to bin storage.  Although it had been confirmed that a smaller size commercial waste bin could be provided, there was no information with regards to how much waste would be generated and how many bins would be required.  There was no guarantee the small yard to the rear would be able to store all of the bins and she also wondered how often they would be emptied and how long they would need to be left on the high street on the day of collection.

In response to a question from Councillor Davinson the Central and East Planning Team Leader confirmed that the first floor office space would have access to the yard via the same exit door as the takeaway.

Councillor Maitland queried whether commercial waste bins containing food waste would be emptied more often than domestic bins and the Central and East Planning Team Leader replied that a bespoke arrangement which met the requirements of the business would be agreed and therefore if required, collections could be more frequent.

Councillor Freeman referred to a recent Council press release which had made reference to the emerging County Durham Plan ‘getting tough on takeaways’.  There was a lot of information included on why this stance was being taken but the significance was that they did not contribute to any health benefits as outlined in the CDP.  He referred to Policy S5 of the City of Durham Local Plan which permitted food and drink uses providing there was no significant impact on the amenity of the nearby occupants, however he failed to agree with that on the basis there were nearby shops at risk of closure.  Furthermore Policy 10 was permitted should there be no adverse effects on neighbouring properties, and for the previous use there had been very little, but a hot food takeaway would produce odour, noise and waste which had not been fully addressed, as there were outstanding issues with storage and disposal methods.

Councillor Brown considered the proposal was contrary to Policy S10 and Paragraph 127f of the NPPF and therefore proposed a motion to refuse the application. 

Councillor Davinson queried the absence of a waste management plan and the Central and East Planning Team Leader confirmed that there was no condition attached, but if Members were minded to do so, a condition could be added.

The Highway Development Manager addressed the Committee with regards to the matters raised.  The property had existing permission which was likely to attract parking.  Upon considering the application, he had to offset the impact against the existing permission.  As the Committee had heard, the majority of the businesses in this particular part of the high street did not operate beyond 5.00 p.m. whereas the vehicle increase as a result of the development would be in the evening.  The parking demand associated with the existing premises when offset against the proposed change of use would not result in a significant impact.

The Planning Development Solicitor referred to the motion put forward by Councillor Brown and was provided with grounds for refusal as follows;

·       The proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of nearby occupants through noise, odour and disturbance arising from the proposed use

·       The proposal made substandard provision for access and waste management

·       The proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area by the nature of the proposed external alterations.

 Councillor Jopling seconded the recommendation to refuse.

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons;

·       The proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of nearby occupants through noise, odour and disturbance arising from the proposed use, makes substandard provision for access and waste management and would be out of keeping with the character of the area by the nature of the proposed external alterations thereby being contrary to policy S10 of the City of Durham Local Plan and paragraph 127f of the NPPF.