Agenda item

2 Borough Street Castle Donington Derby DE74 2LA 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Councillor T Saffell, Ward Member, addressed the meeting. He stated that there were many issues with the application he believed that were wrong, but felt that the conservation issues needed addressing. He advised that the many traders within the conservation area helped to enhance the Georgian features and market the historic town, and that the inclusion of an ugly galvanised flue to the rear of the property would go against the aims. He highlighted that the flue was not Georgian and that the fact that it could not be seen outside the yard was not acceptable as many historic features were not always visible. He quoted the Conservation Officer’s report that the flue had caused harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and quoted policy HE1 in the submitted Local Plan. He advised Members that following the comments submitted to the Local Plan inspector by Historic England, the words “less than substantial” had been removed from HE1. He drew Members attention to the fact that Castle Donington did not have an empty shop problem, with many people wanting to invest in the village so the proposal was not an overriding benefit as the premises could be used for other trades. He urged the Members to refuse the application.

Councillor A Sowter, on behalf of Castle Donington Parish Council, addressed the meeting. He advised that the Parish Council was concerned that the development was a significant change of use and did not accord with current planning requirements for restaurants or the guidelines in the Local Plan for the ratio of class A5 use to classes A1 to A4 uses. It was felt that the restaurant had run well for many years, but when combined with a takeaway and food delivery service it would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the area and its residents. He drew Members attention to the two possible entrances and the lead out on to narrow pavements, and expressed concerns over the possible highway issues, dangers due to customers standing on the pavements and parked cars on the road due to the lack of parking provision. He informed Members that the extended ventilation that would be required for change of use was a carbuncle that would affect the quality of life for the nearby residents.

Mr N Arbon, agent, addressed the meeting. He fully endorsed the officer’s recommendation to permit the application. He advised Members that the application was to retain the flue at the rear of the building and that no other external changes were proposed. He highlighted that the application, which was to change the use from A3 use to A3 and A5 use, fully complied with all relevant planning polices and The National Planning Policy Framework and that the site lay within the Limits to Development, was within a Local Centre as defined by the submitted and adopted Local Plan  Therefore, the proposal was an appropriate main town centre use which didn’t detract from the area, in accordance with policy R19 of the submitted Local Plan, would not undermine the character of the settlement and would not result in an over concentration of proposed use. He drew Members attention to the comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer that the change of use would not have any impact on any of the local heritage assets and that as the flue was located at the rear of the property it would not have an impact on the conservation area.

The recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that it would reduce the diversity of retail in the area and that it would cause harm to the Conservation Area of Castle Donington was moved by Councillor R Canny and seconded by Councillor R Johnson.

Councillor R Canny stated that the application property had always been used as a restaurant, and had been very well used, but over the past year changes had been made and all planning requirements had been flouted, and rather than a restaurant with a small takeaway it was going to be more takeaway with delivery service than a restaurant. She advised Members that Castle Donington was a village and should the application be passed, it would take the use beyond 10%, which was excessive clustering. She felt that the location of the flue was not appropriate as it blocked a window and would impact on the outside area that was used by the residents who lived over the restaurant, adding that it was in the conservation area.

Councillor R Johnson agreed with everything Councillor R Canny had said and sought clarification from officers that planning permission had been given for the flue as he felt that it caused harm in the conservation area and was in the wrong location.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the current lawful use of the premises was not A1 but A3. Therefore, the centre was not losing a retail unit and thus it was not affecting the diversity of units. He stated that the reduction in diversity was not a defendable reason to refuse the application and particularly given the location of the application property on a corner within the defined centre, neither was clustering of takeaways. He advised Members that officers had spoken to the applicant to see if moving the flue to another location would be possible and the applicant had indicated that he was happy to do so. He suggested that should the Committee be minded to permit the application, authority be delegated to officers to add a condition to move the flue.

Councillor D Everitt stated that if there was the need for the business it would succeed, and if the flue wasn’t there the back of the building would not look great due to the age and wear of the brick work. He felt that the flue was a contrast to the old building.

Councillor J Legrys sought clarification from officers as to whether the flue had required planning permission in a conservation area, whether the 10% ceiling for the number of takeaways within the town centre had been breached and what was regarded as the town centre in which the 10% ceiling was calculated. He felt that the questions needed to be answered to allow an informed decision to be made. He expressed concerns that there was a parking issue in the area and that there was a large number of takeaways in the area. He stated that the Council did not have the resources to enforce parking restrictions anywhere in the district at night.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised Members that the flue required planning permission and that was why it was part of the application. In relation to the 10% rule, the amount of takeaways had been exceeded however it was irrelevant as the current lawful use of the unit was not A1 use but an A3 use, and the town centre envelope was set out on the maps contained within the Local Plan.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote and LOST.

The officer’s recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor M Specht and seconded by Councillor J Hoult.

Councillor M Specht questioned that the report did not say that there would be a food delivery service.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration highlighted to Members the additional condition that was outlined in the update sheet in relation to the hot food delivery service.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that the increase in takeaways was happening everywhere including Coalville and Market Street in Ashby with no parking and felt that an A1 use was no different to A3 or A5 uses in that regard, and considered that if A3 or A5 units were not considered acceptable without off street parking then neither should A1 units. In relation to the flue he reminded Members that the Committee had granted permission for a flue at Stanton Harrold that was a beautiful conservation area and when you walked into that courtyard the flue was the first thing that you saw.

Councillor J G Coxon stated that he shared the sentiments of Councillor R Canny, as in the past Ashby had experienced the same problems with the number of takeaways, however he felt that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application. He felt that in time the situation would sort itself out in that if there was a need for the takeaway/restaurant the business would survive and if the custom was not there it would fold.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.