Food-to-go seating at 197 Burgess Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans and removal of the no-seating condition so customers could eat inside the food-to-go unit.

“Condition 2 of permission 23/00799/FUL required the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and Condition 19 states:”

“Proposal 2.1 This application seeks to amend conditions 2 and 19 of permission 23/00799/FUL, which was approved by the Planning Panel in June 2025 for an extension to the existing petrol station. The purpose of varying both conditions is to allow a change to the internal layout of the building extension to provide seating within the approved food-to-go unit allowing…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a petrol station with eight pumps, customer parking and nearby flats separated by a hedge and fence.

“The application site contains a petrol station and forecourt containing 8 petrol pumps. The site has two accesses onto Burgess Road. The entry point nearest to the junction with Burgess Road and Glen Eyre Road and the exit located further to the east.”

“Outside of the hard surfaced areas the site contains landscaping to the road boundaries of the site and there are currently 4 customer parking bays including 1 for the use of air and water facilities for customers. Two bays are located on the eastern side of the site close to the boundary with 205 Burgess Road and the other two are located on the western side close to the boundary with Glen Eyre Road.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Permission for the food-to-go extension was granted in June 2025 with a condition prohibiting indoor customer seating.

“As set out in the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Panel of the 11 th June 2025 condition 19 was added at the request of the Panel in resolving to grant permission for the extension of the sales area to provide the approved food-to- go unit.”

“Some conditions of the approved scheme have had details approved and others have been submitted and remain outstanding at this time.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval, considering the proposal acceptable with closed shutters and a customer parking management plan.

“Parking highways and transport The Council’s Highway’s Officer raises no significant concern regarding the increased traffic generation as, while Burgess Road is busy, traffic in the local area is primarily local. There is concern that increased dwell time may occur, however the type of food to be served within a petrol station is unlikely result in long waiting and eating times, particularly as condition 12 restricts the cooking of food on site.”

“Conclusion It is recommended that the amendment of condition 2 and removal of condition 19 are acceptable subject to the amendment of condition 12 to require the food to go premises to be physically closed outside of trading hours and the inclusion of a parking management condition.”

Officer report

Consultation and local views

Residents raised concerns about disturbance, lighting, alcohol-related behaviour and intensification, while highways officers supported approval with parking controls.

“Concerns relating to alcohol-related behaviour and anti-social behaviour Response…”

“In summary, the proposed development is supported subject to a parking management plan whereby a time restriction is applied to all customer parking spaces to discourage vehicles occupying parking bays longer.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident, a planner and a ward councillor addressed the Panel with the Chair’s permission.

The committee debate

The presenting officer identified an unreported impact on neighbouring amenity and proposed an additional condition restricting extra windows and doors.

“The presenting officer reported that the changes to the building including reduction in the size of the building and addition of a window would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity as this was not detailed in the report.”

“Officers also advised that an additional condition preventing additional windows and doors was to be added to the list of planning conditions.”

Minutes

How members voted

Members first voted against the officer recommendation, then supported an alternative refusal recommendation without opposition.

“Members voted on the officer’s recommendation to approve the application to vary condition 2 and remove condition 19, together with amending condition 12 requiring the proposed shutters to be closed outside of trading hours. Upon being voted upon, the recommendation was lost.”

“An alternative recommendation was put forward by Cllr Windle to refuse the application and was seconded by Cllr Wood. The Panel then considered recommendation that the application be refused. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation as amended was carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

The Panel refused permission because internal seating was expected to increase visitors and dwell time, causing unacceptable noise and disturbance to neighbours.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below:”

“The removal of condition 19 to allow internal seating would create a specific destination for food, which would result in an increase in visitors stopping at the site, arriving on foot and by vehicle. This increase in dwell time would result in additional noise nuisance and disturbance to surrounding residential properties and would be detrimental to neighbour amenity.”

Minutes