Agenda item
218 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 8PB (ref. 11/2118)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from Use Class A1 (retail) to Use Class A5 (hot food take-away), installation of new shop front, erection of 2-storey rear extension with external staircase, installation of extract duct to rear elevation and x2 floor mounted air compressors units at the rear. |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McCllelan, Area Team Manager informed members that local business people had expressed their concerns about the opening of another takeaway in the Preston Road area where there already existed, sufficient food outlets. He added that although the threshold limits under that Policy SH7 of the UDP for the number of non-retail uses in any of the Borough's defined primary frontages of 35% (or 50% where there is a high vacancy rate) had been exceeded, an inspector had already approved a non-retail use for this particular unit in a decision earlier this year allowing a restaurant use.
Mr Robert Mehmet the occupier of the flat above the application site premises objected to the proposed change of use on the following grounds:
(i) Unacceptable level of noise would result from the use of motor bikes in connection with the takeaway service.
(ii) The ducting flue which had been poorly designed straddled the fascia of his window obscured his vision and adversely affected his residential amenities.
Mr Mehmet requested the re-routing of the ducting flue.
Mr Monu Mohararuban, objected to the proposed change of use on the grounds that there already existed several A5 uses (restaurants) in the Preston Road area and therefore there was no need for another one in the area. He continued that an additional takeaway would create parking problems in the area.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member stated that he had been approached by an objector to the application. Councillor HB Patel stated that the Inspector's decision which granted planning permission for A5 use in an area that had exceeded its limit was erroneous in law. In his view the grant of planning permission for this application would further contravene the Council's relevant UDP policy. He continued that the resulting noise nuisance, loss of residential amenities could damage the viability and vitality of the area, setting an undesirable precedent for future applications for A5 uses
Mr Mike O'Brien, the applicant's agent stated that the opening of the takeaway would not result in over-saturation of A5 uses and that any likely impact would be broadly neutral. He continued that the Council's Environmental Health Office was satisfied that any likely impact from the proposal could be addressed by the imposition of conditions. Mr O'Brien added that the applicant had made adequate arrangements for a satisfactory for rear servicing to be accommodated. He sought to assure members that any noise from the use of mopeds would be negligible and would not have adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. He added that the proposal which would create about twenty local jobs would incorporate a shop that satisfied the Council's relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance.
In response to members' questions, Mr O'Brien stated that the duct flue would be visible from the objector's kitchen rather than from a habitable room.
In the discussion that followed, Councillors Mitchell-Murray and McLennan expressed concerns the impact of the proposal on the occupier of the flat above the premises. Councillors Kabir and Sheth enquired as to whether the conditions were adequately robust to address any likely impact. Councillor RS Patel asked for a confirmation of the claim that only 13 properties were consulted on the application. Councillor Baker however suggested a deferral for a site visit to enable members to fully assess the impact of the proposal.
Neil McClellan advised members that no significant impact would result from the proposal in terms of outlook and the use of the mopeds for delivery from the premises. He considered the rear servicing for transit van, refuse storage and mopeds to be satisfactory. He added that the consultation undertaken followed adopted guidance under the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 (SPG2) for this type of development. The Head of Area Planning added that Environmental Health officers did not consider noise to be an issue to warrant justifying refusal of the application. He added that whilst mindful of the potential impact of the flue, officers' were constrained by the Inspector's decision, however, he suggested an amendment to condition 8 that submission of further details should include the potential for an alternative route for the flue and a further condition on parking of mopeds.
The amendment by Councillor Baker for a site visit was put to the vote and declared lost. Members then voted on the substantive recommendation as amended which was declared carried.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in |
condition 8, a further condition on parking of mopeds and informatives.
Supporting documents: