Agenda item

Continue use of the building as a takeaway (sui generis), retain enhanced extract plant.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the site location were included. In addition to this, members were provided with details of the background of the site as well as details of the flue. The Case Officer discussed the benefits of the vertical section and informed members that it was imperative for filtration. Environmental Health Officer’s undertook several visits and were satisfied. The proposal caused less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building and was outweighed by public benefits. The recommendation was to grant.

Mr Dimarino (Engineer, Development Liaison), informed members that he had visited the site and made a full assessment. In summary, there were no negative impacts on highways which were identified. He noted concerns raised by residents regarding illegal parking but reminded members that this would be monitored by traffic wardens at the request of the town council. Mr Dimarino also discussed restricted hours of parking and advised residents of Sherborne to contact the police if illegal parking continued. On balance, there were no reasons for refusal and therefore, supported the officer’s recommendation.

Public Participation

The applicant spoke on behalf of her business. She discussed the location of the shop being within a busy town centre and the issues that they had faced. As a small business they took any objections seriously and made necessary changes. It was highlighted to members that deliveries were scheduled only once a week to mitigate disruption. The applicant hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to grant.

Residents spoke in objection to the proposal. Concerns were raised regarding consistent anti-social behaviour, littering and several environmental health issues. They also discussed a lack of parking resulting in customers parking illegally, which they felt factored into the site being in the wrong location. Mr Budden informed members that he had been in communication with the applicant and did not feel as though he was met with a good response. He sympathised with them but still not feel as though the extraction unit was acceptable. Ms Burchell highlighted to members their duty of care to pedestrians and road users and felt as though the problem would be ongoing if granted. Residents felt as though there had been no effort for change. They hoped members would refuse the officer’s recommendation.

The Local Ward Member and the Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. They discussed several concerns made from residents, including road safety issues and numerous incidents of anti-social behaviour during later times at night. Cllr Andrews highlighted the negative impacts of the existing extraction and felt as though the problem would have been ongoing, stating that the takeaway was in an inappropriate location. They informed members that the applicant had not been using the existing extraction fan correctly which has had direct impacts on residents. Cllr Coleridge-Matthews emphasised the number of objections raised and hoped members would consider their decision and reject the proposal.

Members questions and comments

·       Concerns regarding impacts on health and safety.

·       Clarification of noise reports

·       Efficiency impacts of flue

·       Clarification on previous means of extraction

·       Members questioned as to whether 6 monthly checks could have been ongoing to ensure standards would’ve been maintained.

·       Points of clarification on customer footfall.

·       Members were sympathetic to the residents and the applicant.

·       Members noted the issues raised by residents, the town council and the local ward member but felt that the extraction equipment had been upgraded.

·       Members discussed comments made regarding endangering neighbours mental health and wellbeing.

·       Questions regarding opening hours and licensing provisions for the highstreet location.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Rideout, and seconded by Cllr Mary Penfold.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.