Agenda item

Change of use from betting shop to hot food takeaway and 2 no. flats, to install new front door and roller shutter and flue to rear.

The Planning Officer, George Spurgeon, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy 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 application was for a change of use from betting shop to hot food takeaway and 2 no. flats, to install new front door and roller shutter and flue to rear and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

The Planning Officer noted Paragraph 72 of the report made reference to a condition to restrict the occupancy to a member of staff of the ground floor unit only, however, that was no longer being recommended and was not included in the recommended conditions as out within the report.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor A Surtees, Local Member, to speak on the application, Councillor A Surtees noted she would leave the meeting after making her representations and take no part in the decision.

Councillor A Surtees noted that she had found the Committee report confusing in terms of setting out the number of hot food takeaways in the front street, Seaside Lane.  She noted it had changed from three to four and then to five, adding she had two areas of concern with the application.  She explained that the current hot food takeaway ‘Pizza Mania’ at 38 Seaside Lane would move to 37 Seaside Lane if permission was approved, and while that would not increase the number of hot food takeaways in that street, her concern was that Officers were stating that the application would bring a vacant unit back into use, however, with no firm indication of what would happen with 38 Seaside Lane then the number of units in use would remain the same.  She added that as 38 Seaside Lane already had permission for use as a hot food takeaway, she had a concern that property would not need to seek permission for such use.

Councillor A Surtees noted another area of concern was around traffic and she explained she disagreed with some of the highway assessments.  She noted that traffic in the area was a longstanding serious problem, associated with the hot food takeaways.  She noted the site photographs shown in the presentation did not give a sense of how close the area was to the crossroads, with the majority of the area at the crossroads being double yellow lined.  She added that there was a bus stop directly in front of the current betting office and noted Members would be aware of similar issues in their own area in terms of delivery drivers parking directly in front of hot food takeaways.  She noted that was often on double yellow lines which would then in turn cause issues with line of sight, blocking the bus stop in this case, and cause problems for other road users and pedestrians crossing the road in that area.  Councillor A Surtees noted she did not agree that traffic would not be impacted in the area and added that in terms of the parking for the residential units while there was public parking on the opposite side of the road and also behind, if residents started to use the public parking area that in turn would displace car parking for people wishing to use the shops.

Councillor A Surtees left the meeting at 3.58pm

The Chair asked if the Planning Officer wished to respond to the points raised for the Committee’s information.

The Planning Officer clarified there were five hot food takeaways in the vicinity, two to the west and three to the east.  He noted that the applicant was looking to move from 38 to 37 Seaside Lane, however, there was no guarantee that move would take place.  He confirmed that the unit at 38 Seaside lane had permission for hot food takeaway use and therefore would not need to seek new consent in that respect.  He noted that demand for units was an issue, noted the issues in terms of parking at Easington Colliery and confirmed there was bus stop to the front of the property.

The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby noted that the report set out that there were concerns from the Highways Section in relation to traffic issues associated with hot food takeaways.  He noted that Councillor A Surtees was correct in that, across the county, activity did take place in terms of parking on double yellow lines where there were hot food takeaways.  He explained that the issue in terms of any recommendation for refusal on those grounds was with sustaining a refusal at appeal where there were restrictions that applied, such as a bus stop, double yellow lines, no waiting at any time, and similar restrictions.  The Principal DM Engineer added that aspect was an issue of highway enforcement, an issue an Inspector would look at in terms of any appeal against refusal on such grounds.  He noted that Councillor A Surtees had also referred to residential parking taking up existing parking space.  He explained that he would be surprised if any of the properties on that terrace had in-curtilage parking and therefore parking was happening on-street currently, with the application being a continuation of that.  He added that residential parking would mostly on an evening when people returned from work, freeing up the spaces for use by those visiting the shops during the day.  He added that it was another area that an Inspector would likely refer to in any appeal against refusal, with the Inspector being able to cite there was adequate public car parking space.  The Principal DM Engineer concluded by noting that, on balance, there were not good grounds on which to object from a Highways perspective to the application.

Councillor E Mavin explained he felt the positive aspects outweighed the negatives in respect of the application and therefore he would move approval of the application as per the Officer’s recommendation.  He was seconded by Councillor D Brown.

Councillor J Elmer noted that the Officer had been very diligent in covering all of the issues, including those associated with soundproofing.  He added that while he appreciated the concerns raised by Councillor A Surtees in respect of inappropriate parking, the Principal DM Engineer had explained that was an issue for enforcement by the Police and not for the Committee.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.