Agenda item

Conversion of existing shop into new takeaway shop (Use Class A5) and new hairdressers/pharmacy shop (Use Class A1).

 

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management.  This included the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application. 

 

The Applications Casework Manager introduced the item, explaining that the application sought permission for the subdivision of the existing shop unit into two premises.  It was reported that one unit was intended to be a pharmacy or hairdressers, and the other a take away restaurant.

 

Attention was drawn to the update report, which included some clarifications and additional comments.  Additionally, the letter of a local resident and objector, Mr. Melvyn Beaumont, had been circulated to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited Mr. Beaumont to speak against the application.  He considered that the car parking at this address was already congested and inadequate, and that the proposal would aggravate the situation.  He considered that the increase in numbers of staff in connection with the altered premises would also add to car parking pressure.  He firmly believed that the case for an additional ‘fast food’ facility at this location was not justified, contending that there already existed 25 such premises within 9 miles of the address.  Hairdressing businesses were also abundant in Watford.  Mr Beaumont considered that fast food premises brought with them problems of drug dealing, burglary and anti-social behaviour.  A fast food outlet within 25 metres of a junior school could also add to problems of child obesity and diabetes.  In respect of the Post Office, he felt that there was no guarantee that services would be retained. 

 

Mr Beaumont concluded by stating that in a development such as this, residents’ views should be paramount.

 

The Chair invited Mr Gurjit Dhillon, the developer, to speak in support of the application.  He commented that he and his family had a long-standing and strong connection with the local area, starting with his father, who had lived in that community since 1986.  They were a well-established family in the area, who had no intention of letting down local people.  At the present time the Post Office was not considered to be viable; he had an agreement with The Post Office Ltd to maintain services through the new development.  The current business model was to have a Post Office adjacent to a strong retail outlet and the application maintained this principle.

 

The food outlet would not be ‘fast food’, but fish and chips.  The pharmacy would not be an addition, locally, as the Brow Pharmacy was soon to discontinue.  In terms of waste collection, larger lorries would only continue to visit once per week and this would be solely in connection with the Costcutter outlet.

 

Public order, community safety and parking concerns were being addressed through new closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) being installed as part of the development.

 

The current provision of shops and services on this site was not viable; he was committed to maintaining facilities for the community.

 

The Chair gave permission to Councillor Jagtar Singh Dhindsa, although not a ward councillor for this location, to speak to the Committee.  He then invited Councillor Dhindsa to speak. 

 

Councillor Dhindsa declared that he knew the applicant’s family, particularly Mr. Dhillon’s father.  He considered that the Post Office was a very important community resource, particularly for senior citizens, and the pharmacy was equally vital.  Compared with similar facilities elsewhere in the Borough, car parking at this site was already well-controlled.

 

The Chair invited comments from the Committee.

 

Councillor Sharpe stated that new take-away premises in any area could be controversial and raise apprehension in the local community.  Wholly new developments could bring worries about anti-social behaviour and drug dealing.  This development would not introduce these problems, as it would improve existing well-used local amenities.  The proposals to remove odours from the cooking processes were sound, coupled with ongoing inspection from environmental health officers. 

 

Councillor Joynes asked for guarantees regarding the testing and monitoring of any new extraction equipment.

 

The Applications Casework Manager stated that the new system would be demonstrated and tested before installation.  Without prejudice to the Committee’s decision on this application, as a condition of permission, an assessment and report of a buildings services engineer would have to be undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed extraction system and flue would not create odour or smoke nuisance to the nearest residential properties.

 

Councillor Bashir believed the applicant to be sincere in his wishes and that he was proposing to provide vital services to this vibrant community.  There was no reason to refuse the application, which he supported.

 

Councillor Watkin stated that he was impressed with the applicant’s ambition for the premises, particularly his commitment to retaining the Post Office.  There was no fundamental reason to refuse on the basis of the fish and chip shop and if the proposals kept the parade viable, the application should be supported.

 

Councillor S Johnson requested clarification about the CCTV arrangements in connection with the development, particularly the number of cameras and whether the system would involve Police and Watford Community Housing Trust participation. 

 

The Head of Development Management reported that the scheme involved two external cameras at key locations, one overlooking the car park and one overlooking Costcutters.  Other CCTV cameras were installed in the shops.

 

Councillor Joynes asked that residents’ parking spaces be safeguarded.  The Head of Development Management reported there would be no changes to residential parking as a result of this scheme, as the proposal entailed a sub division of an existing shop and no increase in floor space.

 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation.

 

RESOLVED –

 

that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

 

2.              The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The  following drawings and documents are hereby approved: 

o   Site Location Plan 1:1250

o   Block Plan 1:500

o   Design and Access Statement (09.03.2016)

o   Sheet 1 Existing (09.03.2016)

o   Sheet 2 Proposed plan and elevations (06.07.2016)

o   Sheet 3 Block Plan, Rear elevation detail and extraction detail (06.07.2016)

o   Sheet 4 Proposed ground floor and roof plan (06.07.2016)

o   ‘Commercial Sound Assessment’ carried out by I. Baxter of Peak Acoustics, dated and received 01.07.2016.

o   Manufacturers details of ‘The O.N.100 Odour Neutraliser’ by ‘Purified air Ltd’ (27.05.2016)

o   Manufacturers details of the Electrostatic Precipitator and product ESP3000 by ‘Purified air Ltd’ (27.05.2016)

o   Drawing number ESS-001 of extract fan specification for KBR315 DZ Kitchen Extract Fan, Hopkins 12” and 9” Fans, Turboprop Canopy and SLGU100 Circular Straight Silencer by ‘Hopkins Catering Equipment Ltd’. (27.05.2016)

o   Drawing number MHQ570 of proposed extraction system layout by ‘Hopkins Catering Equipment Ltd’. (27.05.2016)

o   Intruder Alarm Schedule by Croxley Alarm Systems and two plans of alarm layout (09.03.2016)

o   Product details for CCTV system and plan of CCTC layout (09.03.2016)

 

3.         Notwithstanding the information already submitted, an assessment and report of a buildings services engineer must be undertaken to demonstrate that the extraction system and flue proposed would not create odour or smoke nuisance to the nearest residential properties. In the event that this system is found to be unsatisfactory, a suitable system shall be designed by a building services engineer. The details of the extraction system found to be suitable for odour and smoke control shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No A5 activity shall occur at the premises until the flue and systems approved under this condition have been installed and made available for use. The flue and extraction systems shall be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions and be retained at all times for use.

 

4.         Should an extraction system and flue be required by condition 3 that is not as specified in the Noise Impact Assessment ‘Commercial Sound Assessment’ prepared by I Baxter of Peak Acoustics (01.07.2016), a further assessment and Noise Impact Assessment, carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014, shall be undertaken. The A5 use shall not commence or occur at the premises until the report for this assessment has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  If the report requires mitigation measures these shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the report.

 

5.         The A5 premises shall be open only between 11am and 9.30pm on Monday to Saturday. No cooking activities shall be undertaken at the A5 takeaway unit and no customers shall be on the premises before 11am or after 9.30pm Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Public Bank Holidays.

 

6.         The use as a take-away hereby approved shall not commence until the CCTV and intruder alarm systems have been installed in accordance with the approved details and drawings with this application. The equipment shall be retained thereafter as per the approved details for as long as the take–away use remains.

 

Informatives

 

1.         In dealing with this application, Watford Borough Council has considered the proposal in a positive and proactive manner having regard to the policies of the development plan as well as paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations, and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

 

2.         The applicant is reminded that conditions 3 and 4 must be fulfilled in full prior to the commencement of the hot food takeaway use (A5).  Once these details are submitted to the Local Planning Authority, a statutory target period for determination of 8 weeks applies.  The applicant is advised to speak to the case officer to discuss the requirements of these conditions in full. 

 

3.         Internally illuminated signage is shown on the approved drawings however these are not authorised by this decision and these require advertisement consent.

 

4.         The existing steps to the access for the A1 unit are shown to be retained. The applicant is encouraged to seek advice regarding the potential to create a ramped access to the premises to improve accessibility.