Hot-food takeaway at 75 Boundary Road, West Bridgford

What was proposed

The application sought to change a vacant retail unit into a hot-food takeaway, with internal alterations and a rear extract flue.

“Proposal Change of use from retail (Class E) to hot-food takeaway and installation of extract flue…”

“It is proposed for the change of use from retail (Class E) to hot-food takeaway. The change of use would be facilitated by internal alterations, including a larger kitchen area, and the addition of an extract flue.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The ground-floor unit forms part of a semi-detached building within a small neighbourhood centre with shared informal parking.

“The application property is a ground-floor unit with a Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) use, as part of a semi-detached building with a first-floor residential flat accessed via a separate side entrance. The ground-floor unit was once a newsagent, was most recently used as ‘Evans Cycles’ although is currently vacant.”

“In accordance with the ‘Policies Map’ the application site is within the Boundary Road ‘Centre of Neighbourhood Importance’ which is located to the South of Boundary Road, between Willow Road and Ralf Close. The Centre of Neighbourhood Importance comprises 6 ground floor units, across 3 pairs of two-storey semi-detached properties. At first-floor across these properties, it is understood that there is a mix of commercial and residential uses.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and in its effects on the area, neighbours and highway safety, subject to conditions.

“The main issues in the consideration of the application are; principle of development, impact on the character of the area, neighbour amenity and highway safety.”

“Planning permission has been granted for the change of use and works to form a dessert shop including hot food (Sui Generis) between nos.71 and 73. Whilst similarities exist, in that both the proposal and the approval at 71-73 provide hot-food takeaway, 71-73 would predominantly be a dessert shop and the proposal is understood to be savoury items.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health and highways did not object subject to conditions, while six residents supported and 17 residents objected.

“Environmental Health do not object, subject to a series of conditions summarised below. Operation Hours restricted to 11:00-23:00 every day. Details of noise levels for any externally mounted plant or equipment. Details of the extract ventilation system Deliveries and waste collection restricted to Monday-Friday 07:00-18:00, Saturday 08:00-17:00 and no deliveries or waste collection on Sundays and Bank Holidays.”

“NCC Highways do not object, stating the proposal is ‘unlikely to result in a material change to the existing situation in terms of impact on the public highway.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objections included proximity to schools, parking, traffic, safety, amenity, noise, odour, litter, waste, anti-social behaviour and cumulative impact.

“Ward Councillor, Cllr S Dellar, objects due to parking and access issues, pedestrian safety, impact on the character of the area, neighbour amenity, anti- social behaviour, the distance to schools, and notes the centre of West Bridgford has plenty of takeaways.”

“- Impact on residential character and appearance - Increased traffic, parking and highway safety concerns - Potential crime, anti-social behaviour and loitering - Noise and nuisance from customers, deliveries and equipment - Odour, fumes and air quality impacts - Litter, food waste and vermin concerns - Foul sewage, waste storage and collection concerns - Precedent and cumulative impact of further similar uses - Existing local takeaway provision.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the ward councillor addressed the committee under the public speaking protocol.

The committee’s debate

Members viewed the site as a small parade rather than a town centre and raised concerns about healthy communities, visits, parking, highway safety and residents’ amenity.

“Members of the Committee questioned the area being classified as a town centre. Members of the Committee noted that whilst the site was within a designated site of neighbourhood importance, they did not consider it to be a town centre but rather to form a small parade of shops.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to reject the recommendation was proposed, seconded and carried.

“Councillor M Barney moved to reject the recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor S Ellis and the vote was carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused, with the detailed reasons delegated to the Director of Development and Economic Growth.

“PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED FOR REASONS THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR - DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH”

Minutes