Drive-through restaurant at Three Gates Road, Isle Of Wight, Northwood

What was proposed

The application proposed a freestanding fast-food restaurant and takeaway with a drive-through, parking, landscaping, access works and customer order displays.

“Proposed freestanding restaurant/takeaway with drive thru facility, car parking, landscaping and associated works, including Customer Order Displays (COD) (revised information received) (readvertised application)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 0.26-hectare undeveloped site lies within Cowes’s settlement boundary beside commercial uses, near homes, a primary school, nursery and youth clubs.

“The application site is an area of 0.26 hectares located on the southern side of Three Gates Road, Northwood and is currently undeveloped land. Van Mossel Esplanade Car Dealership is located to the immediate east, BAE Systems to the south and to the north, on the opposite side of Three Gates Road, is Three Gates Business Park.”

“The area consists of a mix of residential and commercial uses located within the settlement boundary of Cowes. Lanesend Primary School, along with Little Love Lane Nursery & Pre School is the closest school, located to the northeast of the site, approximately a 5-8 minute walk being around 500m (metres) away. There are also other clubs in the area for young people within a reasonable walking distance from the site.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered storage and distribution with offices and six homes, while related advertisement applications remained pending.

“21/00957/FUL - Proposed change of use of land to B8 (storage and distribution) and proposed construction of offices; formation of vehicular access, associated parking, hardstanding and landscaping – Approved 28 September 2021.”

“25/01650/ADV - 4 internally illuminated menu board signs; 1 banner sign; 19 dot signs comprising 3 accessible bays, 2 parked order bays, 4 litter, 2 no entry 2 pedestrian crossing, 2 give way 1 speed limit 10MPH, 1 Look Left and 1 Look Right signs, and 1 No Idling sign (revised description) (revised plans) – Pending…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because of health, sequential-test, town-centre, character, ecology, biodiversity and rights-of-way concerns.

“Recommendation Refusal, based on the application site being within walking distance of a school and other facilities where children may congregate and therefore failing to meet with policy requirements on health implications, inadequate sequential test and a therefore the impact on the viability and vitality of town centres, as well as adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, insufficient information on ecology and BNG.”

“Refusal, based on the application site being within walking distance of a school and other facilities where children may congregate and therefore failing to meet with policy requirements on health implications, inadequate sequential test and a therefore the impact on the viability and vitality of town centres, as well as adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, insufficient information on ecology and BNG.”

Officer report

Consultees and councils

Highways and drainage consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while public health, ecology, town and parish representatives raised concerns.

“Public Health have commented that there is a lack of any Health Impact Assessment (HIA), only a Rapid Health Impact Assessment (RHIA), which does not address their concerns. The site is close to schools, clubs and other facilities and the potential impact cannot be fully assessed in terms of NPPF Paragraph 97. Air quality/pollution concerns and walking, wheeling and cycling layout also raised as potential issues.”

“Northwood Parish Council strongly object to the principle of this application as it is within a residential setting and detrimental to existing listed heritage assets. It would create unreasonable and unnecessary light pollution and is advertising fast food within 400 metres from a local primary school and recreational facilities, where children and young people play. Risk of antisocial behaviour and safeguarding concerns for unsupervised children and young people.”

Officer report

What the public said

Supporters cited jobs, convenience and community benefits; objectors cited health, traffic, noise, litter, ecology, town-centre and design impacts.

“Create jobs/training/income • More choice of convenience food, closer than Newport less travel • Land is overgrown and an eyesore • Close to industrial sites and other commercial uses • Park and ride bus stop nearby • Allows a place for young people to meet and is affordable • Cheap for families on low income • Litter picking from staff • Could be beneficial to other smaller businesses in area • Appearance of buildings is subtle • Business rates income • Community…”

“No sequential approach for town centre vitality/viability, impacts on town • Harmful to habitats and wildlife, including badgers and foxes • Light pollution concerns • Motorbikes for deliveries should be taken into account in data • Flooding and foul drainage concerns • Standard corporate appearance, not positive addition to local character • Inappropriate opposite listed cottages • Part-time low paid jobs and temporary, not 120 jobs.”

Officer report

Who spoke at committee

The committee heard objectors, representatives of both town and parish councils, and representatives of the applicant.

Members’ concerns

Members discussed the pavement widening, residential noise and light, traffic queues, visibility, pedestrian safety, traffic movements and rights-of-way improvements.

“The Committee raised concerns that the development was proposed opposite residential properties and the amount of noise and light that could be generated by this proposal. Officers advised that an Environmental Noise Assessment had been submitted and an acoustic fence was proposed to reduce the impact of noise and light spillage on/into neighbouring properties, however the Officers did not consider the impact of the fence to be acceptable.”

“Questions were asked in relation to the plan in place if there was a build up of traffic entering and exiting the proposed site. Officers advised that the flow lane would be closed and cars advised to move on, and that Island Road’s believed the site could hold more vehicles than proposed.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

The committee agreed with the report’s recommendation and resolved to refuse the application.

“Decision: The Committee had taken into consideration and agreed with the reasons for the recommendation as set out under the paragraph entitled Justification for Recommendation of the report and:”

Minutes