Issue - meetings

The Principal Planning Officer (AC) delivered his report.

        The Chair thanked the officer and invited any questions from the committee.

        The Chair invited Ms Zoe Rhodes to address the committee. 

        Ms Rhodes explained that she lived directly adjoining the rear of the premises and that she was also speaking on behalf of other residents.  She cited the reasons why the previous applications had been refused and asserted that these reasons were still valid.  The unpleasant odours of hot food establishments could be smelt some distance from the premises and she feared that this would be the case here and would adversely affect the amenity of nearby residences, especially the neighbouring flats.  The proposed extraction system was incredibly close to the windows of these flats.  She stated that this would mean windows would need to be kept closed with the adverse effect on ventilation and air quality.  She added that there had been no consideration of any smells emanating from the kitchen windows and door of the restaurant.  She felt that her garden would become undesirable to use.

        She was concerned that the hours were excessive and would further harm the amenity of local residents.  Additionally, associated parking would block the access to her own house. 

        Ms Rhodes went on to express concerns about the lack of any fire mitigation to protect the flats and her own house. 

        The lack of adequate bin storage area meant that the bin was chained very near to her windows causing problems with unpleasant odours, litter and vermin. 

        She concluded her presentation with references to light pollution, noise and disruption and abusive behaviours that had already been experienced. 

        The Chair thanked Ms Rhodes, but pointed out that many of the issues raised were to do with the operation of the premises and the committee had no authority to deal with this area.  Due to fairly recent changes in planning legislation, the premises could move from a sandwich bar to a restaurant without needing to apply for planning consent.  But he agreed that the issue of the smells associated with the flue were a valid consideration. 

        The officers were asked why there was no health impact assessment and the Head of Planning and Development explained that there was no requirement to submit a health impact assessment for the application. 

        The committee expressed considerable sympathy for Ms Rhodes’s situation and expressed concern that this might have adverse effects upon mental health and wellbeing.  The officers were asked if the situation became untenable for the residents, whether the matter would return to planning or to environmental health.

        The Principal Planning Officer pointed out that the flue was not overhanging Ms Rhodes’s property.  The proposed use was for a café/restaurant and not a hot food takeaway.  If the premises became a hot food takeaway, it would require a planning application.  He added that if the concern over the bin meant that it was a statutory nuisance, then environmental control was the enforcement agency.

        The Chair asked for clarification as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33

The application for 62 Harwoods Road has been deemed invalid and will not be considered on 5 October.

Due to an issue with the red line on the site location plan, which was incorrect, this application has been made invalid and has been withdrawn.