Agenda item

Change of use of ground floor from retail (use class E) to hot food takeaway (sui generis) with ancillary storage on the first floor. 104 - 106 Front Street, Newbiggin-By-The-Sea, Northumberland, NE64 6AA

R Soulsby, planning officer introduced the planning application to the committee with the aid of a power point presentation. He gave the following updates: 

• The application site was within a designated Town Centre by the Wansbeck Local District Plan where the provision of Town Centre facilities were permitted if they were well located within the community. This was outlined in policy RTC1 which wasn’t clearly referenced in the officer report.  

D Brassell addressed the committee speaking in objection to the application. His comments were as follows: 

• The proximity to residential flats was a concern. There were two residential flats joined to the business. The back bedroom window of the upper flat was approximately 2 metres from where the proposed extraction unit was to be placed where smells and noise would be emitted from.  
• Due to the change of use, there were concerns raised regarding noise from the kitchen and late-night customers, vibrations from the extraction equipment, bins and pest control. 
• The bins were located close to the residential flats and would be filled with waste food which could have encouraged vermin. Mr Brassell stated there had always been a vermin problem in the area but this application would exacerbate the situation. 
• The premises had always been a business, and the residents do not oppose another business but the late-night food license brings a host of concerns.  
• The nearby residents were opposed to the application and feared that it would adversely affect their lives. There was potential that customers would have to queue outside resident’s bedroom window which would make them feel unsafe especially when young children come to stay. The business has applied for a late-night food license until 12am which could have meant people congregating outside the residential flats at this time.  

• There was a possibility that groups of people would congregate outside the business and could encourage anti-social behaviour. 
• Newbiggin was already saturated with takeaways and another one would only be a deficit to other business in the town and could have created unemployment. 

T Carter addressed the committee in support of the application on behalf of the applicant, his comments were as follows: 

• He thanked the Chair, committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant. He gave thanks to R Soulsby for giving a professional and balanced appraisal on the application. 
• He highlighted that there were a number of comments opposing the application. Comments were encouraged during the planning application however the objections and comments received were from a small group of people and it was felt that canvassing had taken place. The majority of comments made were regarding perceived competition and not a true reflection of the public’s opinion. 
• Equally a significant number of the public supported the application. The Town Council were in support of the application and stated “Newbiggin Town Council support the application for the change of use and find it encouraging that a business is willing to invest in the local economy and bring employment opportunities when so many businesses have closed their doors in surrounding towns as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.” It was urged that planning committee not to give too much credence to the number of objections but instead their content. 
• The building was vacant and by bringing it back into use in such a prominent location could benefit the area. 
• Newbiggin had become a tourist attraction where people came to visit and a vacant shop would be an eye sore. 

• The comments and objections received had been actively addressed in terms of noise and odour with professional assessments sought. These assessments found no negative impact on neighbouring residents or the site. 
• Assessments carried out had been given to the Environmental Health Officers and they had agreed with the findings. 
• Highways officers had found that there would not be a significant change with adequate parking provided to the front & rear of the premises.  
• There were to be no external changes to the building so there was no harm to the conservation area and conservation officers had assessed this.  

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:? 

• In terms of the application individual comments and objections some were received from residents within Newbiggin and there were objections and comments from residents in neighbouring towns and villages. Comments could be accepted from any member of the public in terms of an application. Neighbouring areas are usually consulted and as this application was within a conservation site it would have been advertised in the newspaper.  
• It was clarified that noise assessments were conducted by a consultant in April 2021 and then assessed appropriately by an Environmental Health Officer and no concerns were raised. A noise assessment looked at plant and machinery needed and the noise the equipment would produce not noise level due to voices etc. It was already a commercial property and the business was not going to be a noise generating business to where it would give significant disturbance to the neighbouring residents. Custom at this kind of business was usually a steady stream of people where customers would go in and out of the premises. 
• The refuse bins would be securely stored to the rear of the shop. There was information on where the bins would be stored which was all that was required for the application. A condition could be added to include a refuse strategy where the applicant would have to provide more information to see if there were any facilities to securely store the bins and collection days. 

• The highways team would have been able to enforce if refuse bins were left out at the front of the building not on bin collection days. 
• There was no planning policy or restriction that limited the amount of hot food takeaways that were situated in an area. There were no grounds in terms of planning that could have refused the application on that basis. 
• Highways had looked at the delivery strategies proposed by the applicant and felt that they were in-keeping with the neighbouring and adjacent commercial businesses. It was noted that there were restrictions in place in designated parking bays for loading and no concerns were raised by Highways regarding deliveries to and from the application site. 
• Conservation Officers raised no objections in regards to the application and there was no harm to the heritage asset. They stated that it would bring a vacant unit in a prominent area of the Town back into use. Building conservation did not raise any objection to the application. 
• An odour assessment was provided as part of the application which was appropriately assessed by the Public Protection team. Condition 6 within the officer report stated that the kitchen extraction system would provide a high level of odour control which would protect the immediate neighbours. 

• The application would have the opening hours from 12p.m – 12 a.m 7 days a week. The public protection team had assessed the opening hours and had raised no objections. 
• The application was only for the change of use not for any external changes therefore the look of the building could not be dictated. 
• There was no indication in the application regarding the applicant undertaking food deliveries from the site however there was not anything in the use class order that would prevent them from doing this in the future.  
• There was no jurisdiction to make the applicant responsible for litter produced by customers. They could be asked to provide bins as a goodwill gesture but this condition could not be imposed. 
• Changes in the conservation area would have had to be implemented through the local plan and changes cannot be put in place through planning. The legislation did not legislate for competition between businesses or number of certain businesses within an area. If an application came forward the officers were duty bound to consider it against the planning law as it was known.  

• Although 24 people were notified any number of people could respond to the application. The application was advertised in the press and published on lampposts in the local area. 20 people supported the application and it was stated that 9 of those supporters lived outside of Newbiggin. 
• As officers from Highways, Public Protection and Conservation had raised no objections and had given details of the assessment on the public forum it was deemed that the planning officers were able to discuss the information with members. However, if it was deemed necessary the application could be deferred to invite officers from Highways, Public Protection and Conservation to discuss. 
• Closing times of adjacent business varied from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The general consensus was that they were closing between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. If members felt it was necessary a planning condition could be imposed to reduce the business hours so it closed at 11p.m. The business hours would have also been subject to a license from the licensing team so if they had any concerns they could have raised it. 

Councillor Grimshaw proposed to defer the application until officers from Highways, Public Protection and Conservation were present on the next occasion which was seconded by Councillor Nisbet. 

Some members felt that they could not support the proposal as they felt the information Councillors were seeking was already in the report and felt it would be a waste of officer’s time to reiterate what was already indicated in the report. 

A vote was taken on the recommendation to defer the application until officers from Highways, Public Protection and Conservation were present as follows: FOR 7; AGAINST 8; ABSTENTIONS 0. The motion failed.  

Councillor Wallace proposed to grant permission with the conditions in the Officer’s report with the additional condition regarding submission and approval of a refuse strategy scheme, with exact wording of that condition delegated to the Director of Planning and in conjunction with the Chair. Also, an amendment to condition 7 that the premises should only operate between the hours 12:00 – 24:00 Monday – Saturday, Sunday 12:00 – 23:00. This was seconded by Councillor Reid. 

Members raised concerns that the high standards that were held along the street front had to be maintained and felt there was a responsibility with the public and business owners to maintain this. 

Members felt that Newbiggin had become a town they had become proud of and it was a beautiful part of Northumberland that was now becoming a tourist destination. Therefore, it was important that the right decisions were made in relation to planning applications. It was a tourist destination and members needed to be mindful of how the highstreets were changing and what members were allowing to go into the highstreets. 

A vote was taken to on the recommendation to grant permission with the conditions in the Officer’s report with the additional condition regarding submission and approval of a refuse strategy scheme, with exact wording of that condition delegated to the Director of Planning and in conjunction with the Chair. Also, an amendment to condition 7 that the premises should only operate between the hours 12:00 – 24:00 Monday – Saturday, Sunday 12:00 – 23:00 as follows: FOR 10; AGAINST 4; ABSTENTION 1 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED with the conditions in the Officer’s report with the additional condition regarding submission and approval of a refuse strategy scheme, with exact wording of that condition delegated to the Director of Planning and in conjunction with the Chair. Also, an amendment to condition 7 that the premises should only operate between the hours 12:00 – 24:00 Monday – Saturday, Sunday 12:00 – 23:00.