Agenda item - BH2014/03996,4A Blatchington Road, Hove - Full Planning

Change of use from retail (A1) to hot food take away (A5) and installation of extract duct.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

              Change of use from retail (A1) to hot food takeaway (A5) and installation of extract duct.

(1)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application related to a vacant ground floor retail unit within a three storey mid-terrace property on the south side of Blatchington Road. Residential flats were housed on the upper floors, including within the roof space. There was also a single storey flat roofed extension located to the rear occupying the entire rear garden area. The property was situated adjacent the Old Hove Conservation Area.

(2)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the change of use, the impact of the external alterations on the character and appearance of the recipient building and the wider area, the impact of the development on the amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the impact on parking and the highway network in the locality. It was considered that the proposed change of use would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the Hove Town Centre. The proposed external works would not have an unacceptably harmful impact on the character and appearance of the recipient property, the wider street scene or adjoining Conservation Area. The proposed change of use would not have a significantly harmful impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, nor would it result in undue parking street or traffic congestion in the locality and approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)          Mr McComb spoke on behalf of objectors to the proposals. He stated that it was both disappointing and concerning that in the face of categorical refusals by the owner of the property to permit the applicant to use the premises as a hot food take-away they had pursued this application. The owner of the freehold of premises was themself intending to submit an application to convert the site to housing in addition to the flats located above, this was considered more acceptable, as there were already a number of take-away food outlets nearby. Additionally, there were concerns regarding access for delivery and storage and removal of waste as that would only be possible from the front as access from the rear would be denied. There were also concerns in respect of fire safety, (there were no proper means of escape from the floors above in the event of a fire), noise and odour controls for those living in accommodation above.

(4)          Mr McComb stated that he refuted the information contained in the acoustic report submitted by the applicant, the equipment had been placed on an adjoining roof, had not been positioned correctly, nor had the readings been taken at the times indicated. If granted the Committee was minded to grant approval it was requested that a condition be applied ensuring that the premises closed by 6.00pm.

(5)          Councillor Moonan spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. She concurred with all that Mr McComb had said on behalf of objectors, considering that the application was “provocative” as no discussions had taken place with neighbouring occupiers or local residents. It would give rise to noise, fumes and traffic issues and would be unneighbourly for those occupying the residential accommodation above and nearby.

Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Littman sought confirmation that a planning application could be submitted irrespective of whether or not the premises in question were in their ownership. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that this was the case and that issues relating to landlord and tenant issues, such as the issuing of a lease, access and fire safety were not planning considerations. They would need to be resolved as separate issues.

(7)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner enquired regarding conditions which could be applied to control noise and fumes from the extractor fan.

(8)          Councillor A Norman asked whether/what arrangements the applicant had made in respect of fire safety arrangements or in order to mitigate any noise or other nuisance. It was explained that these were not planning considerations but would need to be addressed under Building Control or Environmental Health requirements.

(9)          Councillor Barradell sought clarification of the arrangements which would be put into place for the removal of refuse from the premises and regarding verification of the acoustic data provided by the applicant

(10)       The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, stated that a number of fast food establishments in the city had timed daily waste collections from the front of their buildings, including a number of premises located nearby in Boundary Road. It was confirmed that until the objector had raised the issue officers had been unaware any queries in respect of to the validity of the acoustic assessment. The Chair, Councillor Cattell suggested that in view of the queries raised it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the application in such time as the information provided could be verified. Members were in agreement this would be appropriate.

(11)       It was agreed to defer determination of the application in order to refer back to the applicant regarding on validity of the acoustic data provided, following receipt of information from the speaker at Committee about removal of testing equipment.

45.10    RESOLVED – That for the reasons set out above consideration of this application be deferred in order for those matters to be investigated further.

              Note: It was noted that as the decision to defer determination of the application, pending verification by the applicant of the validity of the submitted acoustic data had been made after the objector and the Ward Councillor had spoken (the applicant/agent had also been invited to attend but had not done so), no further public speaking would be permitted in respect of this application.