Commercial kitchen alterations at Ground Floor, 55-57 Sea Lane, Rustington

What was proposed

The application sought a commercial extractor, changes to rear windows and doors, and a covered walkway between the main building and outbuilding.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONVarious alterations to an outbuilding including alterations to fenestration, erection of a covered walkway between the main building and the outbuilding, and a commercial kitchen extractor. SITE CHARACTERISTICSSmall, pitched roofed outbuilding. The ground floor of 55-57 Sea Lane is a former office building, and the first and second floors form a residential unit.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous application received prior approval for changing the first and second floors from offices to one maisonette.

“R/148/25/PDPrior approval under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA for the change of use of first and second floors from office use to 1 No maisonette. No Object'n + Conds 09-10-25”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because the works complied with relevant policies and would not cause significant visual or residential harm with safeguards.

“The proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies in that the extractor and other changes will not harm the visual amenity of the area, and will not harm the amenity of neighbouring residents.”

“The site is in a residential area. The premises has residential neighbours on Cudlow Avenue, and immediate residential neighbours on the upper floors of the shopping parade that 55 - 57 Sea Lane forms part of. There is a terrace used by occupiers of the residential units at 51 - 53 Sea Lane immediately to the north of the site.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and objectors raised concerns about noise, odours, parking, access, waste, safety, traffic, heritage and a possible restaurant or takeaway use.

“REPRESENTATIONS Rustington Parish Council - Object. - The extractor would adversely impact the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers as a result of noise, odours and the height of the flue. - Impact on nearby listed buildings and conservation area. - Existing parking spaces may impact fire safety. - Walkway between the restaurant and kitchen is not enclosed and may be a safety concern for staff. - Development could lead to customers parking in the adjacent private road.”

“- Lack of parking. - Disruption as a result of delivery drivers. - Lack of information regarding refuse arrangements, including storage of food waste close to residential dwellings and potential to attract foxes and rats. - Proximity to residential properties. - Lack of demand for a new restaurant/takeaway. - Increased comings and goings, leading to increased noise, particularly late at night. - Traffic issues, leading to decreased pedestrian safety. - Increased litter.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Five public speakers included a parish councillor, two objectors, the agent and a supporter.

What members debated

Members debated whether the works could be considered separately from a future use, along with parking, highways, waste, boundaries and lawful use.

“Members queried whether the application could be considered separately from any proposed use of the adjoining building, noting that supporting documents referred to a restaurant operation, associated drainage arrangements and waste management measures. Concerns were raised regarding parking provision, highway safety, pedestrian access, waste collection and the potential impact of a restaurant or takeaway use on neighbouring residential properties.”

“Some Members expressed concern that the proposal should be considered alongside any future use of the adjoining building and indicated that they were unable to support the application on that basis. Other Members noted that the Committee was required to determine the application as submitted and not speculate on future development proposals.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The chair put the officer recommendation to a vote after members had no further questions.

“As no further questions were raised, the Chair then put the recommendation to the vote.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application conditionally, with the decision limited to the external alterations and safeguards for residential amenity.

“The Committee was shown the site location plan, existing and proposed block plans, elevations and photographs of the site. Members were advised that the application related solely to external alterations to the existing outbuilding, including alterations to fenestration, the installation of a commercial kitchen extractor and the erection of a covered walkway.”

“In response, officers advised that the application related solely to the external alterations and extensions shown within the red line boundary and that the Committee could only determine the development for which permission had been sought. The adjoining land shown within the blue line boundary did not form part of the application.”

Minutes