Restaurant extensions and equipment at 556 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood

“Retrospective planning permission is sought to erect single storey front and rear extensions, alter the shopfront, install a canopy, layout a raised patio/terrace to the front with seating, install air-conditioning (AC) units to the rear, an extraction system to the roof and a storage container to the rear.”

“The storage container to the rear is some 4.8m deep, 2.5m wide and 2.6m high and is made of metal finished in blue. The applicant’s agent has advised it is used for dry food storage. Bin storage is provided at the rear adjacent to the rear and western side elevations of the storage container within a wooden enclosure.”

“The application site is on the northern side of Rayleigh Road and contains a two-storey, flat roofed building used as a restaurant at ground floor level with a residential flat above. The first-floor flat is self-contained from the ground floor and accessed from the rear via an external staircase. The frontage has a raised patio area with a canopy over for customer seating and to the rear is a service/parking area accessed from Rayleigh Road.”

“The immediate site surroundings include a mix of retail and commercial properties along Rayleigh Road, some with residential flats above. Away from Rayleigh Road, the area is residential in character with a residential cul-de-sac, Springwater Grove, to the north of the site.”

“The 2024 Refused Application included a more solid and deeper (up to 7.1m deep) front extension but did not include any external seating. • The 2024 Refused Application included 9 parking spaces and 1 delivery/service bay at the rear compared to 3 parking spaces with the current application. • The 2024 Refused Application did not include the shipping container or any plant and equipment compared to the current application which includes those.”

“Table 1: Relevant Planning History of the Application Site Reference Description Outcome 26/00500/ADV Install one internally illuminated fascia sign to front elevation, one internally illuminated fascia sign to the front entrance and one internally illuminated fascia sign to side elevation (Retrospective) Advertisement Consent Granted.”

“The site formerly had existing informal parking areas only to the front and rear, with no formal car parking spaces marked out and no cycle parking spaces. The development has resulted in the loss of some informal parking areas; however, it formalises 3 off-street car parking spaces to the rear which can be secured by condition.”

“For the reasons outlined above the development is found to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant planning policies and guidance. The development is acceptable in principle and has an acceptable impact the character and appearance of the application site, the streetscene and the area more widely. Subject to conditions, the development would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.”

“Public Consultation 4.1 Eleven (11) neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter during two (2) rounds of consultation, and a site notice was displayed. No representations have been received.”

“Environmental Health 4.2 No objections. The submitted Odour Risk Assessment is acceptable and identifies the system as high/very high risk, requiring the highest level of control, including Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) units and carbon filtration, which have been installed.”

“Resolved:- That PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The extraction system, due to its size, height and prominent roof-level location, results in a visually intrusive form of development. The equipment appears out of keeping and incongruous within its surroundings, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building, the streetscene and the wider surrounding area.”