Takeaway and four-person HMO at Waterloo Tavern, Ashton-under-Lyne

What was proposed

The application proposed a takeaway with ancillary restaurant, a four-person HMO, roof alterations, dormers and a roof terrace.

“Proposal: Change of use of ground floor into Hot Food Takeaway (Use Class Sui Generis), change of use of first floor and loft space to a 4 bedroom/person House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) (Use Class C4), other alterations including raising the ridge height, rear dormer extensions and roof terrace with glass balustrade.”

“To facilitate the residential accommodation, the following alterations/extensions are proposed: - Increase in roof ridge height by 0.9m (eaves height to remain) - 3no rear facing dormer extensions - Formation of a rear roof terrace including glass balustrade measuring 1.1m in height (from floor level).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant corner building formerly contained a public house, commercial ground floor and four-bedroom residential accommodation, with parking and an ancillary building.

“The application relates to a two-storey standalone building on the corner of Oldham Road and Vale Street in Ashton Under Lyne. The building is currently vacant, though formerly served a commercial use at ground floor and residential accommodation at first floor, in the form of a 4-bedroom dwelling. The original use of the building and site was a public house, named Waterloo Tavern, though closed circa 2015/16.”

“The application site also serves a single storey detached building, also in commercial use, ancillary to the main building. The remainder of the site comprises hardstanding for parking purposes. The application building is largely rendered in white, albeit its rear elevation, and includes single storey flat roof extensions to the rear.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included an approved shelter and frontage works, while two proposed HMO changes of use were returned.

“07/00575/FUL: Erection of a timber framed shelter with slate pitched roof and enclosing fencing. Application approved June 2007.”

“16/00249/FUL: New frontage and gable elevations. Application approved July 2016.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the uses compatible, the design acceptable, highway impacts safe, neighbouring amenity protected and the HMO living conditions of a high standard.

“Paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF states that development should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being with a high standard of amenity for existing users and future users. Policy H10 and S7 of the UDP supports national policy, and are also relevant in this case.”

“The mixed use of the building for commercial and residential use, is compatible with the use of the surrounding area and thereby acceptable in principle. The design of the proposed alterations/additions are acceptable and no unacceptable highway safety concerns have been raised. The development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the living conditions of the HMO would be to a high standard.”

Officer report

Professional advice

Highways, National Highways, Environmental Health, Waste Services and Housing Standards raised no objection, subject to specified requirements.

“Environmental Health: No objections, subject to a conditions restricting the hours of conversion works and a condition relating to details of refuse storage.”

“Waste Services: The number and size of bins are acceptable for a HMO having a trade waste contract.”

Officer report

What people said

There were 198 objections, two supporting comments and two neutral comments, covering traffic, parking, amenity, design, waste and other concerns.

“The comments received are summarised below: Traffic/parking matters: • Increased parking on nearby roads • Not enough car parking spaces for the proposed use • Increased congestion • Cars will park on double yellow lines • Where would collection vehicles park? • Where would refuse vehicles park? • Where would material deliveries off load? • Will the bus stop be affected? • Oldham Road is very busy…”

“Other matters: • Sets a precedent • Noise/hours of operation • Devalue neighbouring properties • High concentration of HMOs in a small area • Increase in anti-social behaviour/crime rate • Increase in litter/improper use of bins/no provisions for waste • There is a need for public houses in Tameside • HMO tenants are unvetted/HMOs attract the worst • More takeaways would put financial strain on the existing • Increased stress/pressure on schools, doctors, dentists • Health…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward member and a resident objected, while the applicant addressed the Panel.

The vote

The motion to grant permission received one vote for, one against and four abstentions, so the Chair used a casting vote in its favour.

“[the applicant], the applicant, addressed the Panel. Decision It was PROPOSED – That planning permission be granted.”

“Upon there being an equality of votes, the Chair exercised their casting vote in favour of the motion.”

Minutes