Agenda item

Change of use to hot food takeaway (across all three levels) and erection of high velocity duct/flue/cowl to rear, extracting above eaves but below ridge level.

The Principal Planning Officer (PH) 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 change of use to hot food takeaway (across all three levels) and erection of high velocity duct/flue/cowl to rear, extracting above eaves but below ridge level and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer (LM) and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement on behalf Councillor A Surtees, Local Member.

“Members of the Planning committee apologies for not being in attendance to read this statement in person.  I have huge concerns with this application and appreciate your time in listening to this statement which will be read out by the Committee Services Officer.  On the whole I feel that the application is detrimental to the community of Easington for a number of reasons and contradicts a number of planning guidelines and policy.

Firstly NPPF 8 Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities.  Reducing levels of obesity is a key objective of the council and an overconcentration of hot food takeaways can have a detrimental impact on vitality and viability, as such it is recommended that not more than five percent of premises should be hot food takeaways – furthermore that no new hot food takeaways should be permitted within 400 yards of a school.  This application contradicts both, there is a Nursery School (on Crawlaw Road) that is less than 200 yards of this proposal and of the 42 commercial premises in the vicinity only 22 are trading and at least six of those are hot food takeaways.  I would argue that both of these elements should determine refusal of this application.  Furthermore there is a youth group to operate out of the Methodist Church directly opposite this proposal covering ages 5 to 11 years and 11 years plus.

It is also stated within this report that it is not considered to increase ASB or fear of crime, some facts to consider here are within a six month period 111 incidents of anti-social behaviour were reported of which the main area was around the main street area of an existing hot food takeaway. 

At Paragraph 48 (in relation to additional noise and odour) of the report the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has commented that ‘the information submitted is not sufficient to allow full consideration against the thresholds stated in the Technical Advice Note (TANS).  At Paragraph 49 the Environment officer objected to the operating hours. 

At Paragraph 50 no details of the menu have been provided which in turn means that the proposed extraction unit does not directly relate to the types of food it should be fit for purpose for.  This again cannot be robustly assessed, nor risk assessed based on the EMAQ/DEFRA guidance for the control of odour and noise.

At Paragraph 51, linking back to my first observations about healthy neighbourhoods, how can this be considered as in my opinion there is a high proliferation of hot food takeaways if the findings are based on operation units opposed to all of the nits including the closed and boarded up ones that

have not traded for decades in some instances.  At a personal level I am also at a loss as to why the application is for a take away over three levels

when the building is described as a two storey end terrace and why would you need a three storey takeaway? 

Committee Members, thank you for listening to this statement and I would ask that you consider my observations with this proposal and refuse the application based on the following, thank you:

* within less than 200 yards of a school,

*less than 20 yards away from youth provision,

*in an area with high levels of anti-social behaviour,

*no details of menu, supported by EHO

*no details of odour and noise impact, supported by EHO

*in an area of high deprivation with more than 5% of units being take aways in existing operational

commercial units”. 

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Dr Anton Lang, agent for the applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Dr A Lang explained that that the Case Officer’s report and presentation by the Principal Planning Officer (PH) had already address most of the main points in relation to the application.  He noted that the proposals were in line with CDP and NPPF and reference to incorrectly applied distance criteria within written objections was incorrect in itself and therefore was not relevant.  He noted that any existing issues of anti-social behaviour were not for this application to address and suggested that any new premises would actually be likely to reduce such behaviour.  As regards the menu, this was picked up via condition, with details to then inform the type of ventilation system to be used as Committee were likely already aware from previous similar applications.  He explained that seeking permission for three storeys may not look good in principle, however, it was simply to be able to use the whole building for storage rather that three storeys of hot food takeaway.  He noted previous use as a tattoo parlour and tanning salon and reiterated that the upper floors would be for storage. 

In reference to the concerns raised by the Parish Council, Dr A Lang noted that there were five hot food takeaways and 21 empty units and explained that the use Class A1 and E did not inhibit other class use.  He concluded by noting he felt those issues raised would not have sufficient weight at any appeal of an approval decision and noted he would be happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

The Chair thanked Dr A Lang and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Quinn noted CDP Policy 30 and asked as regards the 400 metre proximity to a local nursery.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) the wording of the policy was ‘school or college’, and accordingly it was to look at the rationale for the policy, in terms of school age children.

Councillor K Shaw noted he was struggling with the conclusion within paragraph 67 of the report and that the issue was that of imbalance to the mix of shops currently, rather than as regards the future use of any other empty shop units.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that the proposals for hot food takeaway did not preclude any other use in the retail centre and was not undermining the principle of use of the retail centre for retail use.  Councillor K Shaw asked if the application was approved would that not then cause an imbalance.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that Officers felt that the addition of one hot food takeaway would not create an imbalance.

Councillor L Brown noted that, given the proposed hours of operation, a licensing application would mirror those in the planning permission.  The Principal Planning Officer (PH) noted that information as regards any permission granted would be shared with Licensing colleagues.

Councillor J Quinn moved that the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendation, he was seconded by Councillor L Brown.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

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