Ribble Valley Borough Council

DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - REFUSAL

Ref: CB
Application No: / 3/2013/1059
Development Proposed: / Change of Use from Sui Generis Shop to Hot Food Takeaway (Class A5) at 59 King Street, Whalley, BB7 9SP

CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council

Whalley Parish Council – Objects to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies

Environment Directorate (County Surveyor) – Objects to the proposal.
Environmental Health - Objects to the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations

No representations have been received.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan
Policy G1 – Development Control.
Policy ENV16 – Development with Conservation Areas.
Policy S10 – Hot Food Takeaways.
Policy SPG – Hot Food Take-Away Shops.
Whalley Conservation Area Appraisal.
Ribble Valley Core Strategy (Regulation 22 Post Submission Draft)
Policy DMG1 – General Considerations.
Policy DME4 – Protecting Heritage Assets
Policy DMB1 – Supporting Business Growth and Expansion.
National Planning Policy Framework
Achieving Sustainable Development.
Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
POLICY REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
DWLP - G1, ENV16, S10, SPG / Core Strategy DMG1, DME4 – Detrimental to residential amenity (noise and odour) and highway safety.
COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION:
The application relates to a mid terrace property located between The Dog Inn PH and the DeLacey Arms PH in the centre of Whalley close to the junction of Whalley Road with Accrington Road. The row of properties to which this property forms part are all within the conservation area and are designated as Buildings of Townscape Merit within the associated appraisal.
The application site currently has a Sui Generis (Beauty Salon) use and permission is sought to change the property to a Hot Food Takeaway. The Hot Food Takeaway proposed to be open as follows: Monday to Thursday 4pm – 1am, Friday to Saturday 4pm to 4am, and, Sunday 4pm – 1am. The business would employ two full time members of staff and 2 part time staff.
In respect of the principle of development, policy S10 of the DWLP requires hours of operation to not cause harm to residential amenity, the emission of odours to be controlled by fume extractors, provision of waste bins, car parking and service provision and for proposals to conform with all other policies in the Plan, and for proposals to conform with all other relevant policies in the Plan. In respect of other policies relevant to this application I consider policies G1 and ENV16 of the DWLP and the Council’s SPG on Hot Food Take-Away Shops, and policies DMG1 and DME4 of the emerging Core Strategy to also be applicable.
The Supplementary Planning Guidance focuses on the amenities and living conditions of neighbours being protected.
Whist a change of use only is proposed, the Head of Environmental Health, Mr James Russell, has advised me that mechanical extraction and filters will be legally required if the Hot Food Takeaway business is to operate. The submitted application does not include any details of the proposed extraction and filter methods, and given there is likely to be an impact on the building, a designated heritage asset, and the wider conservation area, contrary to Policy ENV16 of the DWLP and Policy DME4 of the emerging Core Strategy, there is insufficient information within the application to assess this aspect.
The necessary mechanical extraction will result in noise and odour being created (both adjoining pubs have residents living above them), the Swan Hotel exists on the opposite side of the road, residential properties exist on Church Street and therefore it is extremely important that information concerning the resultant noise and odour is received and assessed. It is highly likely that the Hot Food Takeaway could have a detrimental impact on the occupants of the adjoining premises and surrounding properties. Accordingly, no information has been submitted on the odour emissions or noise emissions created by the proposed Hot Food Takeaway. The LPA therefore considers the proposed use would likely have a seriously detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents and the air quality of the conservation area. I thus recommend the application be refused on this basis.
Whilst on the subject of residential amenity, the LPA also has serious concerns with the proposed opening hours of the takeaway. It is proposed to open Monday to Thursday 4pm – 1am, Friday to Saturday 4pm to 4am, and, Sunday 4pm – 1am. In deciding if this is acceptable, and being mindful of nearby residents, including those who live in the public houses, the Council’s Licensing section have provided the licensing hours for the other pubs adjacent and opposite which are as follows:
The Dog Inn
Sunday-Thursday 0900-0030
Friday-Saturday 0900-0130
De Lacey Arms
Sunday-Thursday 1100-0030
Friday-Saturday 1100-0130
The Swan Hotel
Mon-Sunday 1100-0030
It is clear to see that the opening hours proposed far exceed the licensing hours of the three Public Houses, two of which are adjacent with The Swan Hotel being opposite. The potential noise from mechanical extraction and patrons using the business, as well as the resultant odour from the extraction and filter methods will all lead to conditions, which potentially could lead to conditions detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent residents, and those in close proximity. This is contrary to policy G1 of the DWLP, the SPG on Hot Food Take-Away Shops and policy DMG1 of the emerging Core Strategy.
The Head of Environmental Health considers that if, the LPA were minded to approve the application, the opening hours of the takeaway would need to be controlled. Environmental Health are of the opinion that the opening hours should not exceed those of the adjacent licensed premises i.e. 0900 to 0030 Monday to Thursday and 0900 to 0130 Friday to Sunday. The proposed finish times of 0100 hours Monday to Thursday, 0400 hours Friday and Saturday and 0100 hours on a Sunday. The hours of opening proposed far exceeds those of the licensed premises adjacent which, by the nature of the business, including:
i.  noise nuisance from internal operations and mechanical equipment,
ii.  noise nuisance from external activity such as persons arriving and departing from the premises, and,
iii.  intrusion of cooking odours,
would be detrimental to the amenities of adjacent occupiers contrary to policies G1 and S10 of the DWLP, the SPG on Hot Food Take-Aways and policy DMG1 of the emerging Core Strategy.
Policy S10 of the DWLP and the SPG “Hot Food Take-Away Shops requires proposals to provide details of refuse storage of both the businesses commercial waste and the litter generated by customers. This is to prevent refuse being stored externally at the front of properties removing clutter from the street scene. No details have been submitted in this respect and thus the proposal is contrary to this criterion of Policy S10. In this case, storing refuse on the pavement and the dropping of litter would adversely affect the visual amenities of the conservation area and streetscene.
It is the opinion of the Environmental Health section and the LPA that due to the insufficient information submitted with the application it is not appropriate to approve the application as it stands and the application will thus be recommended accordingly.
In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority has also raised objections to the proposal as no parking facilities are proposed, again this contrary to Policy S10 of the DWLP that requires car parking and service provision. Whilst the application site is in the centre of Whalley, only private pay and display car parks exist, therefore, there is very limited free or public parking available within the vicinity. It is likely that customers would park outside or opposite the Takeaway, or on Church Street in contravention of the Traffic Regulation Orders in place which have been implemented to ensure the free flow of traffic at this busy road junction. The unlawful parking of vehicles in front or opposite the property would subsequently lead to a highway safety issue in terms of vehicles using the highway by virtue of pedestrians using the narrow pavement and King Street being fairly narrow for vehicles to manoeuvre round preventing the free flow of traffic through the centre of the village. This will form an additional reason for refusal. In addition, parking on Church Street at unsociable hours would also cause residential amenity issues.
To conclude, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of nearby residents and highway safety, I thus recommend the application be resisted.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be refused.