Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00896/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00896/B Applicant : Victoria Grill Limited Proposal : Alterations in connection with a change of use from bank to restaurant (class 3) and takeaway, including installation of flue from new extraction system. Site Address : Bank Station Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2DD
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 24.09.2018 Site Visit : 24.09.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.10.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is unsuitable for a takeaway facility due to the close proximity of the signalised pedestrian crossing which would result, from the insufficient on site parking provision to serve the development, in illegal on-street parking on the crossing zig zag markings and the double yellow lines adjacent to the site. This would reduce the visibility by approaching traffic of pedestrians on the crossing , decrease the visibility pedestrians on the crossing would have of approaching vehicles and could obstruct through traffic on the main route, resulting in queueing back onto the pedestrian crossing, which is unsafe. The proposal therefore fails to accord with Transport Policy 6 and General Policy 2i.
R 2. The parking spaces have no manoeuvring space available to them which results in vehicles either reversing in or out of the spaces onto a busy main road. This will be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to Transport Policy 6 and General Policy 3h and i.
R 3. There is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed operation would not adversely affect the living conditions of those in surrounding residential properties by virtue of noise from the disposal of waste and the comings and goings of staff and customers later in the evening, and by virtue of the noise and smell from the operation of the flues. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 22 and General Policy 2g and k.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00896/B Page 2 of 10
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Silverdene, 2, 3, 5 and 7, Silverburn Drive as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
7, South Barrule Avenue as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
The Smithy House 1, 2, 7, 10, 11 and 12, Chester Mews 3, York Mews 9, Silverburn Drive, 1, 2 and 4, Ascot Mews 91, Hawthorn Grove, Wayside Cottage, 86, Pine Grove and Cly na Mona, Station Road
as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy
It is recommended that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Manx Utilities as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the former Isle of Man bank premises situated on the western side of the A5 main road which runs between the roundabouts in the centre of Ballasalla and the one at the entrance to Balthane industrial estate. The site accommodates a building - the former bank - with a hard surfaced forecourt in front used for car parking. At the time of one site visit, there were three vehicles parked in five available spaces, all parked facing the road. This area is
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00896/B Page 3 of 10
10m by 8.5m with a smaller area alongside, partly occupied by the ramped access to the building, of 5.8m by 5.5m with a pedestrian access in between. Double yellow lines run across the front of the site.
1.2 At the rear of the site there is an enclosed yard with dimensions of 5.5m by 6.5m.
1.3 The site has residential properties on three of its sides: Silverdene, a large, detached dwelling sits to the north; 2, Silverburn Drive sits immediately to the south with the rear garden of 5, Silverburn Drive lying to the rear of the site.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the property to a cafe and take away including the installation of a flue. The application indicates that the operation will be run by a company who operate Victoria Grill on Victoria Street in Douglas. In addition to the sit in and take away eating, a delivery service will also be offered. The premises will be open from 1100 until 2200hrs every day with the home delivery service operating between 1700hrs and 2100hrs every day.
2.2 The application information describes the operation as employing 4 members of staff who will arrive by public transport with two additional part time delivery drivers employed in the evenings who will deliver the food by motorbike or scooter although they also add that if food is to be delivered by car and the car park in front of the building is full, the drivers will park their vehicles at the nearby public car park adjacent to the Commissioners' Offices. Delivery vehicles will visit in the early morning before the business is open.
2.3 The application describes the site as having an existing access onto the highway and they consider it relevant that the established use of the site already generates a large degree of traffic movement to and from the site. They describe there being six car parking spaces available "entirely for customers' use".
2.4 They describe visibility from the entrance of 43m in both directions from 2.4m into the site and the adjacent highway is subject to a speed limit of 30 mph. They refer to the Commissioners' car park which is 144m away and which can be used by customers. and signage to this effect would be erected on site.
2.5 The application includes the installation of a flue described as a "modern cooking air extract ventilation system" to be designed and installed by specialists to the required standards. Further information is provided to describe the extraction as a filtered extraction hood with flat woods 500mm axial fan with silencers to both sides to give sound levels not exceeding 30dB. This will be terminated with a high velocity jet cowl to disperse the extracted air 30m above termination in order to control potential odour nuisance.
2.6 Two flues are proposed, both on the rear pitch of the roof, both matt black, one, the higher of the two, larger than the other at up to 1.1 m above the roof level and maximum 650mm diameter, the other up to 1m in height and mostly 350mm diameter. The seating area is not annotated to indicate how many tables there could be. The premises in Victoria Street are a little under twice the floor area and accommodate around fourteen tables seating between 2 and 5 people at each
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Area Plan for the South (2013). Such designations do not preclude other uses where these are complimentary to a residential neighbourhood, for example local shops, light industry and employment opportunities can be acceptable (Strategic Plan paragraph 9.2.3 - definition of light industry, Business Policy 10, section 10.6). Community Policy 4 presumes against the loss of local shops and public houses although neither a cafe/restaurant or take away fall within the definition of a
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00896/B Page 4 of 10
shop under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, Article 6, Schedule 4: Use Classes.
3.2 General Policy 2 sets out standards of development which are relevant as follows:
Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them".
3.3 Transport Policy 6 provides protection for the needs of pedestrians as much as for those of other road users.
3.4 Environment Policy 22 protects the environment, including properties in respect of a presumption against development which would unacceptably harm these amenities in respect of airborne pollutants, odour or noise pollution.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The premises have been the subject of a number of applications for alterations, none of which is relevant to the consideration of the current application.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Local Authority Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application, expressing concern about the existing drain which crosses neighbouring properties rather than connecting directly into the highway as is suggested by the plans. They are also concerned with the lack of information about waste storage and disposal an consider vehicular access is hazardous and could involve vehicles reversing onto an arterial route at busy times (05.09.18).
5.2 Highway Services Highway Services do not accept that staff will necessarily arrive to the site using public transport nor that customers and staff, including delivery drivers, will not park on the highway if there are no free spaces within the site as their wait is relatively short term. They consider that the alternative car park is too far away to be a viable alternative. Near to the site is a pedestrian crossing where it is important for highway and pedestrian safety that vehicles are not parked within the restricted area either side. They suggest that parked vehicles will obstruct traffic on the main route through Ballasalla. They accept that restaurant customers may use the alternative car park and would not be opposed to a restaurant here. They note that no information is provided about deliveries - what sort of vehicles will be used nor the frequency of visits. Whilst signage is referred to, it is not acceptable to install signage on the public highway. It is noted that vehicles may have to reverse onto Station Road when leaving the site.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00896/B Page 5 of 10
Local residents 5.3.1 The owners of Silverdene which lies immediately to the north of the site, object to the application, expressing concern at the impact of a business use on the drainage of the site which already suffers problems and potential problems arising from there being inadequate car parking provision which could lead to people parking their vehicles overhanging the pavement and where most vehicles will be driven in and reversed out onto this busy road. When the bank was operational this was frequently a problem. Parking spaces at The Paddocks opposite are almost always occupied. Whilst information is provided about the flue and extraction, no mention is made of scrubbers to stop droplets and fumes which means that the extraction will affect neighbouring dwellings and surrounding properties due to prevailing winds. As the proposed premises are to be open 7 days a week there will be no respite for neighbours. They are unsure how refuse will be dealt with and there is also no mention of signage, outside lighting or control of noise pollution. Any food waste is likely to attract rodents and careless disposal of food waste is sure to attract gulls. They have looked at other premises operated by the applicant which are fast food outlets not a restaurant or take away and are concerned that litter will be a problem regardless of requests for bins to be used. They already experience wrappers and fast food litter in their garden from outlets in Douglas and Castletown. This facility will not enhance the gateway to the Island from the Airport and will not promote a healthy lifestyle as is being advocated by Government (05.019.18).
5.3.1.1 The amended information does not overcome their issues and consider the plans inaccurate in respect of a door which does not exist but is shown on the drawings as well as their conservatory which is not shown and they do not believe that sufficient information has been provided in respect of the drainage and waste storage and disposal, signage. They request evidence of similar installations which will demonstrate that there will not be any odour issues (27.09.18).
5.3.1.2 They submit further views on 16.10.18, including a report from March Consultants Limited, inter alia, mechanical building services engineers which expresses concern that the proposal does not refer to accepted standards for commercial kitchen installations and does not provide details of the actual equipment to be used, which is essential in assessing whether a system will be effective. They do not believe that 30dB noise levels can be achieved due to the likely velocity of the discharge and its resultant height dispersal nor that odour control will be effective. They also provide information from 2015 on traffic levels, with 65,000 and 70,000 vehicle movements over a 6 day period, suggesting that numbers will have increased by now, and that any badly or illegally parked vehicles will have a significant impact on highway safety. They refer to an application, 03/01961/B which was refused for the creation of a takeaway at the property on the corner of Douglas Road and Station Road, for reasons relating to an absence of information on fumes, a perceived adverse impact through noise and disturbance on surrounding residential properties and on highway safety.
5.3.2 The owner of 3, Silverburn Drive is also concerned about the sewerage, noting that the existing drains already cause problems through blockages and a commercial use involving food can only make this possibility more likely. She notes that this is a residential area and the problem of parking will be increased with only a limited number of parking spaces on site and she believes that customers will try and part in Silverburn Drive which is already used by those associated with the dental practice at number 4, Silverburn Drive. This, however, she describes as bearable as the the practice is not operational at the weekends and during working hours. She believes that there are likely to be smells and noise which would make the enjoyment of her garden "a thing of the past". She has not had the opportunity to look at the application itself as she is about to go on holiday (03.09.18). She reiterates these comments on 07.10.18 and wonders how, if issues arise with the drains, the applicant will deal with that late at night. She asks whether Manx Utilities have considered the proposal and considers that vermin is more likely to be attracted to the area from the river where they are already. She is concerned about highway and pedestrian safety and the hours of operation which are far longer than the previous use of the building.
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00896/B Page 6 of 10
5.3.3 The owners of The Smithy House which sits next door but one to the north to the application site and object to the application, considering that the site is wrong for this type of use, given the closeness of the busy main road where there are already parking problems which will be exacerbated by the proposed facility. They consider that the neighbourhood will be adversely affected by noise from large groups of people coming to the site at busy weekend nights with potential parking on the pavement as well as the smell and the "90ft chimney" which is more in keeping with an industrial estate (10.09.18).
5.3.4 The owner of 10, Chester Mews, which is opposite the site, objects to the application, expressing concern that neither Malew Parish Commissioners nor the Planning Division advised local residents of the application and are of the view that the proposal will result in traffic congestion and difficulty in people leaving The Paddocks to turn onto the main road to the detriment of pedestrians using the footways alongside. He does not believe that staff will use public transport to get to and from work and that they will use private transport which will be parked on the road or over the road on land which is reserved for residents. He considers that the Island does not need another fast food outlet which will exacerbate problems of obesity and here will have an adverse impact on local residents (13.09.18).
5.3.5 The owners of 9, Silverburn Drive which sits behind the application site, object to the application on the basis of increased traffic noise and notes the lack of parking spaces, especially at night. Parking on Silverburn Estate is already an issue in the day time and they note that people are unwilling to walk any distance. They doubt that customers will walk to the site from the Commissioners' car park, particularly in wet or windy conditions and vehicles will be left in the estate, possibly with engines running as the parking available on site will not be sufficient. They are concerned that the sewer is already overloaded and the proposed use will exacerbate this. The smell from cooking will be an added problem and will rubbish with the concern about vermin being attracted to the area as bins are only emptied once a week (10.09.18). They add on 09.10.18 that the fan will be noisy as will the staff dealing with rubbish and do not believe that people will park in the car park and wait.
5.3.6 The owner of 2, Ascot Mews objects to the application on the basis that there are insufficient car parking spaces for the proposal and customers and staff will park in the private spaces reserved for residents of The Paddocks. She does not believe that staff will use public transport and the main road is busy at times and there will be a danger to those trying to leave the car park. She is concerned about smell, cleanliness and hygiene and potential noise problems as the facility is planning to be open until 2200hrs (13.09.18).
5.3.7 The owners of 2, Chester Mews object to the application on the basis of inadequate car parking, smell, noise and cleanliness, with the worry of attracting vermin and seagulls to the area (13.09.18). The additional information does not overcome these concerns (04.10.18).
5.3.8 The owner of 1, Ascot Mews shares the above concerns (14.09.18).
5.3.9 The owner of 91, Hawthorn Grove opposes the application on the basis of inadequate car parking and dangers of vehicles emerging from the site onto the main road. He is also concerned with the impacts of litter, smell and noise (20.09.18).
5.3.10 The owners of 12, Chester Mews object to the application on the basis of highway safety, inadequate car parking, smell and litter (18.09.18 and 24.09.18).
5.3.11 The owner of Wayside Cottage which sits on the other side of the road from the site, expresses concern about the potential impact of the extractor flue on nearby residents in terms of smell nuisance and he notes that there is no indication of the number of tables and estimates that there would be no less than 6 tables of 4 people which would generate a significant amount of car parking demand if only half full. Whilst the applicant indicates that the staff will use public transport, he wonders how this will be enforced, noting that when the
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00896/B Page 7 of 10
dental practice was proposed at the corner of the main road and Silverburn Drive, it was stated that customers and staff would not park on the estate but do. He considers that there is inadequate car parking for the proposal and disputes the contention that customers would be local and the village is already well supplied with eating establishments - Tang Court, The Abbey, Andy's Plaice, Whitestone Stores, the Whitestone and the Village Bakery in addition to the facilities on Balthane Estate. He believes that there would be vehicles parked on the highway and comparison with the former bank use is not appropriate as there were fewer customers and different opening hours. A more appropriate comparison would be Domino's Pizza on Groves Road. He considers the proposed opening hours are inappropriate for a residential area through the impacts of noise and smell and it would encourage litter and vehicle pollution as well as antisocial behaviour. There is no indication of how refuse will be stored prior to removal and there is a risk of attracting vermin (14.09.18).
5.3.11.1 He reiterates these objections on 05.10.18, noting that there is still no confirmation of table and seat numbers or where deliveries would be undertaken and remains opposed to the hours of operation in a residential area. He considers himself to be sufficiently affected as to warrant being afforded interested person status.
5.3.12 The owner of Sycamore Cottage who also owns 2 and 5, Silverburn Estate, notes that the sewer runs across his property which has needed to be unblocked in the past. He is concerned that there is insufficient fall in the pipe to cater for the additional load from the proposed use. He queries whether there is sufficient space for waste to ensure that it does not attract vermin in this residential area. He seeks assurance that the extraction systems will be sufficient to prevent nuisance to neighbours and he does not believe that there is sufficient car parking (03.09.18).
5.3.12.1 He adds on 15.10.18 that the additional information does not address his objections and advises that Manx Utilities are not aware of the nature of the sewer and are to investigate its suitability for the proposed use. He believes the proposal will add surface water from gullies to existing sewerage. He asks where the waste water from the washing of the bins will be discharged as there doesn't appear to be an obvious satisfactory route for it to be disposed of. He believes that his properties will be adversely affected by noise, smells and antisocial hours of operation.
5.3.13 The owner of 7, Silverburn Drive objects to the application on the basis of inadequate car parking and the operation will be detrimental to highway safety. She is concerned about parking overspilling outside her house with sewage issues within the pipework which is close to her property as well as litter being left within and close to her property. She is concerned about cooking smells and vermin being attracted to the site (26.09.18).
5.3.14 The owner of 4, Ascot Mews consider that there is insufficient car parking and that the operations will continue until times where noise from customers and staff vehicles as well as deliveries will be unneighbourly. They are concerned about smell nuisance and provisions for waste storage (13.09.18). The owners of 7, Chester Mews (24.09.18), 3, York Mews (26.09.18), 11, Chester Mews (13.09.18) submit the same letter of objection.
5.3.15 The owner of 86, Pine Grove is concerned about highway safety, parking issues and smell nuisance (16.10.18).
5.3.16 The owner of 1, Chester Mews objects to the application on the basis that there is insufficient parking and she does not believe that staff and customers will park elsewhere. A more appropriate location for a fast food outlet would be the recently vacated Whitestone Garage site on Douglas Road (17.10.18).
5.3.17 The owner of Cly na Mona, Station Road, objects to the application on the grounds of traffic increase and noise (18.10.18).
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00896/B Page 8 of 10
Those in favour of the application 5.4.1 The owner of 7, South Barrule Avenue, Port Erin supports the application, considering that this would be a great addition and would bring people to the area and could prevent money being spent elsewhere when it could be spent in Ballasalla where she works (10.09.18).
Applicant's response 5.5.1 The applicant has responded to the comments made on 1st October, 2018. They explain that foul drainage from the premises connect to an existing foul sewer in Silverburn estate which passes through the rear garden of two adjacent properties. Whilst concern has been expressed that this sometimes blocks up, this would be a problem whatever the site were used for and they give assurances that if this arose, the problem would be addressed immediately. They explain that it is their intention to install a grease trap as required by MU who have no objection to the proposal. They also explain that bins will be installed for recyclables, cardboard, food, general waste all of which will be stored at the rear of the premises and the bin area will be screened by a 2m high timber fence and high level access gate. Arrangements will be made to empty the bin twice a week and two large litter bins will be provided adjacent to the front door with the manager being responsible for carrying out regular checks on litter and refused storage areas and ensuring cleanliness and tidiness. They advise that Highway Services were consulted and it was accepted that there is an established commercial use of the site with the parking and access in place for more than 30 years without any major traffic accident and they compare traffic to that equivalent to a neighbourhood convenience store with short stay visits. They confirm that the premises will close for business by 2200hrs, earlier than the public house and the extract ventilation system will be fitted with silencers and fileters with a high velocity cowl to disperse odours 30m into the air. They conclude by suggesting that any use of the premises will result in noise and vehicular activity.
Manx Utilities 5.6.1 MU have no objection, subject to no surface water being discharged to the main foul sewer and they refer to Section 6 of the Sewerage Act 1999 which prevents any discharges of any matter likely to injure the sewer or drain, to interfere with the free flow of its contents or to affect prejudicially the treatment and disposal of its contents. They advise that it is the responsibility of the occupier to provide satisfactory means of disposal of the waste from the premises ad a grease/fat trap is recommended to be installed and maintained (10.10.18).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this particular case are whether the proposal would result in any adverse impact on the residential amenity of those in the properties surrounding the site or on highway safety. Whilst the property is, or was previously in commercial usage, this was on the basis of a bank, previously a shop which would not have generated noises or smells and the level of traffic and nature of visits - the number and the length of stays. As such, the previous use, whilst commercial has only limited relevance to the current proposal.
Access 6.2 Highway Services recommend that the application is refused for the reason that the site is unsuitable for a takeaway facility due to the close proximity of the signalised pedestrian crossing which would result in illegal on-street parking on the crossing zig zag markings and the double yellow lines adjacent to the site. This would reduce the visibility by approaching traffic of pedestrians on the crossing , decrease the visibility pedestrians on the crossing would have of approaching vehicles and could obstruct through traffic on the main route, resulting in queueing back onto the pedestrian crossing, which is unsafe. They would not oppose a restaurant only here.
6.3 There is no evidence to support the suggestion that staff will travel to work by public transport and even if current staff working elsewhere did this, there is no guarantee that future workers would do this. Staff undertaking deliveries are likely to want to get as close as possible to the premises to pick up the orders and to keep them as warm as possible, will want to be
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00896/B Page 9 of 10
able to get in and out of the site as quickly as possible. There are only five parking spaces and their use depends upon vehicles reversing in or out of the spaces from or onto a main arterial route, neither of which is ideal or particularly safe. The need for sufficient parking is particularly important here as there is a pedestrian crossing close to the site as well as a railway crossing which is operational regularly between Easter and October. Any additional impediment to traffic flow will significantly impede through flow of traffic and have an adverse impact on highway safety, particularly for those using the pedestrian crossing.
6.4 Whilst an overspill of parking onto the surrounding area may result in inconvenience for residents, there is no evidence of issues of highway safety, rather inconvenience. It would be irresponsible however, to ignore the fact that those unfamiliar with the area and wishing to use the facility will try to find the closest parking space to the site and are likely to look to Silverburn Drive or The Paddocks, regardless of whether these are private spaces. Almost all, if not all the properties in Silverburn Drive have their own off street parking spaces. It is worthy of note that the McDonalds take away and restaurant on Peel Road in Douglas, whilst a drive through, often sees vehicles queuing on the main road waiting to get into the site, regardless of the fact they are blocking the westbound carriageway, close to a light controlled pedestrian crossing facility. The waiting time for these vehicles to access the site, order and collect their food, if there are queues, will not be dissimilar to the time for vehicles using the application facility to park, order, receive their food and leave, suggesting that users of this facility may also park inappropriately for the perceived short period of time it takes to use the service.
Impact on neighbours 6.5 The proposal has the potential to impact those close to the site, through noise of customers coming and going, noise of the operation of the activity including closing up and dealing with rubbish, smell and the operation and appearance of the flues.
6.6 There will be more activity later at night than at present or in the past with greater numbers of people coming and going. Whilst the premises, and a number of the residential properties, are on a main road, the noise and activity associated with constant flows of traffic, is different from the noise of voices, car doors and vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the spaces. It is considered that the proposal will result in an adverse impact on those closest to the site - Silverdene/The Narrows, 2 and 4, Silverburn Drive sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
6.7 Similarly, the noise of staff dealing with bins late at night and generally securing the premises is likely to result in a new and adverse impact on these properties sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
Smell 6.8 Some information has been provided by the applicant in respect of the noise and smell emissions from the proposed flue system. This is challenged by the technical advisers of one of the nearest neighbours on the basis that inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate that the noise and smell nuisances are capable of being mitigated. The site lies within a residential area where commercial flues are not generally expected. Where such is proposed, is must be demonstrated that the operation of the flues will be effective and will not result in any adverse impact on those in neighbouring properties. It would appear from the evidence provided by March Consultants Limited, that this has not been proved beyond dispute and given the presumption against activities and impacts which are not to be expected in a residential area, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that the activity could be operated without adverse impact on those in residential properties close by.
Visual Impact 6.9 The proposed flues would be visible from the gardens of the residential properties alongside. What would be visible would be a larger flue than would be expected in a residential area, but if it were painted matt black, its visual impact is not considered to be unacceptable.
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00896/B Page 10 of 10
Other impacts 6.10 There are concerns that the operation will attract vermin in the form of rodents and seagulls. This could be through inadequate or inappropriate storage of waste. There are Environmental Health and Food Hygiene regulations and legislation which could deal with incidents such as this and if appropriate measures are taken, there is no reason to conclude that this will inescapably be an issue, although it is understood why neighbours would be concerned about such problems.
6.11 Whilst there have been objections to the means of drainage of the site and the appropriateness or otherwise of the drainage system to accommodate what will arise on site, this is a matter for the drainage authority who have control over what is discharged to the drainage system. It is not, therefore considered a matter for the planning application.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is not considered to be acceptable due to the likely impact on highway safety and upon the living conditions of those closest to the site and the application is recommended for refusal.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 26.10.2018
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal