1. No category

Subject:
Report to:
Submitted Planning Applications
Pennines Planning Sub Committee
Status:
For Publication
Date:
16th April 2015
Report of: Director of Economy and Environment
Author: See individual agenda reports
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To provide recommendations to the Committee on planning applications or related
consents submitted to the Council and requiring the consideration and/or determination
of the Committee in accordance with the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.
1.2
To provide information on any other planning or development related matters which
may affect the work of the Committee.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
Recommendations in respect of individual planning applications are as detailed in the
following papers.
3.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
3.1
The submitted applications on this agenda are to be determined in accordance with the
provisions of relevant legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Planning and
Compensation Act 1991, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Act
2008, Localism Act 2012 and the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management) Procedure Order 2010 together with any Circulars and Regulations
which support that legislation.
3.2
Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where relevant,
any such material considerations will be referred to in the report.
The Development Plan
3.3
All planning applications referred to in this report have been assessed against the
relevant policies and proposals of the development plan for the Borough (currently the
adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2006) and any Supplementary Planning
Documents or Guidance adopted by the Council.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
3.4
In addition, in assessing the submitted planning applications, there is a requirement to
have regard to relevant national policies as set out within the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) the policies of which are a material consideration. Where relevant,
the provisions of the NPPF and any other relevant national guidance will be referred to
in the report.
4.
RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
4.1
The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with
Planning Matters. Members and Officers are required to have full regard to the Code
in discharging their responsibilities and duties in relation to planning matters on behalf
of the Council. The Code seeks to ensure that all decision making is governed by an
open and transparent process and represents a standard against which the conduct of
Officers and Member sitting on the Committee will be judged.
4.2
A Declaration of Member Interests Register is taken prior to the commencement of the
Committee meeting. Advice on whether any Member sitting on the Committee ought to
declare any interest on any item on the submitted agenda should be obtained from the
Head of Legal and Democratic Services or the Chief Planning Officer.
4.3
The Council’s Standards Committee will monitor the operation of this Code of Conduct.
5.
EQUALITIES IMPACTS
5.1
The above Acts require Local Planning Authorities to consider planning applications on
their individual merits having regard to the development plan and other material
planning considerations.
5.2
The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain
characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. These protected
characteristics are Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil
Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex (Gender), Sexual
Orientation, socio-economic status and Carer.
5.3
In applying the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to consider the effects of its
decisions on different groups protected from discrimination, including a duty to make
reasonable adjustments. In taking account of all material planning considerations,
including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and the National
Planning Policy Framework, the Service Director (Planning and Regulation Services)
has concluded all opportunities to promote equality through the planning process have
been taken, or where adjustments cannot be made, these are justified on the basis of
the planning merits of the development proposal.
5.4
The Rochdale and District Disabled Access Working Group may comment on relevant
planning applications. Where comments are received, these will be included within the
reported to Committee. Consideration is given in designing access when dealing with
the planning applications. Where applicable, any issues relating to these matters or
other equal opportunity matters will be referred to in individual planning application
reports.
6.
6.1
Human Rights Act 1998 considerations
The submitted applications need to be considered against the provisions of the Human
Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applications (and those third parties, including
local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to
this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments.
6.2
Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 confer(s) a right of respect or a person’s home, other
land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including
Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Service Director
(Planning and Regulation Services) has concluded that some rights conferred by these
Articles on the applicant(s)/objectors/residents and other occupiers and owners of
nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in
accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of
the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on
these rights posed by approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits
of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the
Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
Background Papers
The background papers relevant to the planning applications to be considered on this agenda
will include:1. The Planning application file and its contents which will include:
i) The planning application form and supporting information, together with scaled
drawings/plans and relevant statutory certificates.
ii) Letters of response from statutory and other consultees who may have been consulted
or commented on the planning application
iii) Letters and documents received from interested parties.
iv) Notes of telephone conversations, meetings and any information received and of
relevance to the submitted proposal
2. For any previous planning application referred to in the agenda report or in the application
file, the planning application forms and the decision on that proposal
3. Such other papers (if any) received after the preparation of individual reports on planning
applications on this agenda (to be reported verbally at the meeting).
4. Any other guidance or procedural documents adopted by the Council and of relevance to
the recommendation and/or determination of any submitted planning applications or related
consents
For further information about this report, or if you wish to see any background
papers please contact: Sharon Hill, Senior Business Support Officer, in Economy and
Environment, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU
Telephone (01706) 924305 or via the online planning services at:
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning
Application Number: 15/00147/FUL
Ward: Milnrow And Newhey
Proposal: Change of use of ground floor office space to wine bar (Resubmission of
14/01227/FUL)
Site Address: 1 Shaw Road Newhey Milnrow OL16 4LU
Applicant: Mr Craig Kerr
RECOMMENDATION: Refused
SCHEME OF DELEGATION
This application has been called in to the Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee
committee at the request of Councillor Butterworth, and on behalf of Councillors Brett and
Rodgers, who request that members consider the impact of the development on the
regeneration of a commercial property in New Hey; the impact of the redundant property on
local amenities; the objections received to the planning application and the need to provide
social interaction with the community.
Members may refuse the application on reasonable planning grounds. If Members are minded
to approve the application, it must be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee for
determination as a decision to approve would be contrary to a previous decision of the
Council.
SITE
The application relates to an existing business premises that occupies a prominent corner
position on the junction of Shaw Road and New Hey Road. The two storey property is a
traditional and attractive stone building that was originally constructed as a bank and was last
used as an office, but is currently vacant.
The site is within the New Hey Village Centre and is surrounded by a mix of commercial and
residential uses, with a pair of recently constructed dwellings sited to the immediate north east
(along Shaw Road) and a number of retail uses sited sporadically along both Shaw and New
Hey Road.
PROPOSAL
The application proposes the change of use of the ground floor office space to a wine bar. It is
proposed the wine bar would open Mondays – Saturday between the hours of 12:00 and
00:00 and on Sundays and Bank Holidays between the hours of 12:00 and 23:00. Anticipated
employee details have not been provided.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
National Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF on 27 March
2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are
expected to be applied.
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
The government published its NPPG on 6 March 2014. This is intended to complement the
NPPF and to provide a single resource for planning guidance, whilst rationalising and
streamlining the material. Almost all previous planning Circulars and advice notes have been
cancelled. Specific reference will be made to the NPPG or other national advice in the
Analysis section of the report, where appropriate.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP):
G/D/1
Defined Urban Area
G/S/1
S/6
S/10
Hierarchy and Role of Centres
District Centre, Local Centres and Linear Commercial Areas
Food and Drink Outlets
G/EM/1
EM/2
EM/3
Environmental Protection and Pollution Control
Pollution
Noise and New Development
G/BE/1
BE/2
Design Quality
Design Criteria for New Development
PUBLICITY
Earliest Decision Date: 18 March 2015
Revised Expiry Date: No extension agreed
Site Notice: General Site Notice
Date Displayed: 17 February 2015
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
96/D33847 – Change of Use from Bank to Class A3 (Hot Food Takeaway/Restaurant) Use –
Refused.
14/01227 – Change of use of ground floor office space to wine bar – Refused.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Environmental Health - Noise/Odours - Although attention has been paid to potential noise
issues, the location will still give rise to complaints. Therefore this application cannot be
supported on the same grounds as the previous application. The adjacent properties are still
residential, as are the properties located directly opposite the application site. The proposed
use therefore would cause nuisance to neighbouring properties through noise and general
disturbance.
Highways And Engineering – No objections to this development as proposed. No dedicated
parking has been provided, however due to the nature of the proposed development
customers are unlikely to require parking facilities. Various bus routes are located along the
A640 (Huddersfield Road) and the A663 (Newhey Road) in addition to this, Newhey Train
Station is within close proximity of the development, each offers a sustainable transport
method alternative to car travel. The applicant has also proposed an internal phone linked to a
local taxi firm for the benefit of customers. A development of this size and nature will not
create a negative impact upon road safety, existing 'No Waiting at any Time' restrictions
outside the development will deter on street parking. A development of this size and nature will
not have a significant negative impact upon the local network capacity. The application
proposed will not affect refuse collection from the development. Adequate space will be
retained as part of the proposed development to store and dispose of refuse collection. This
application will not impact upon the highways layout. No new access to the highway will be
created by this development. Existing highways drainage will not change as a result of this
development. No public right of way will be obstructed by this development.
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has been publicised with a site notice and neighbour notification letters. Two
letters of objection have been received. The points raised are listed below.
-
Concerns regarding the absence of parking facilities and the possible obstruction of the
taxi office car park at no. 11 Shaw Road. Limited parking in the area.
Access to the property is on a very busy road junction.
Noise nuisance from customers outside the property, taxi pickups and drop offs, music
and general noise associated with a bar including people outside smoking.
Privacy concerns for no. 2 Huddersfield Road which is adjacent the site and has
habitable room windows facing onto the road and where customers will approach the
site from.
The site is within a predominantly residential area and established pubs have been
there for many years with residents aware of the noise associated with them.
Health and safety concerns as the objectors have been informed that traffic lights are
to be installed. Therefore concerns over people being dropped off and picked up at the
junction and the safety of people outside the bar.
ANALYSIS
Principle of development
The application site is located within the New Hey Village Centre, as defined by the Rochdale
Unitary Development Plan. Policy S/6 is therefore relevant to any development at the site and
under this policy it is stated that the change of use to food and drink outlets will be permitted
provided that the use would be of a scale and character appropriate to the size, role and
function of the centre or area.
The proposed use is located in the relatively compact local village, which contains a mix of
commercial uses, with a number of A1 retail uses near the site as well as a relatively high
proportion of residential properties. There are currently limited food and drink premises within
the local centre, but those in existence include the restaurant owned by the applicant, the
Italian Job.
It is noted that a letter of support was received for the previous application and this stated that
New Hey requires new businesses and that this use would support existing businesses in the
area. No similar letter has been received under the current application, however it is
recognised that local and national policy requires there to be a good mix of uses within local
centres and it is considered that the proposal would provide that mix, thus retaining and
supporting a functional and vibrant local centre. Taking this into account, it is considered that
the principle of the proposed use would comply with policy S/6 of the UDP, however policy S/6
also requires changes of use to be compatible with surrounding land uses and not harm local
residential amenity. This is assessed in the subsequent sections of the report.
Residential amenity and impact on environment
One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to always seek to secure high quality
design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and
buildings. Policy S/6 requires changes of use to be compatible with surrounding land uses
and not harm local residential amenity and policy S/10 requires that food and drink outlets
should not unduly affect the amenity of nearby residents or businesses by reason of noise,
smell, litter and hours of opening.
In addition to the above, policies EM/1, EM/2 and EM/3 are relevant and these require that
development should not be harmful to the environment, land uses and land users in the area
and ensure that air, water and noise pollution is kept to an acceptable level.
It is noted that objections have been raised regarding the impact on surrounding residents and
their amenity, particularly in relation to the neighbouring residents at no’s 2 and 4 Huddersfield
Road, which are sited immediately adjacent the site. In light of this and to ensure full
consideration is given to any potential impacts on residential amenity, consultations have
taken place with the Council’s Environmental Health department and they have confirmed that
they cannot support the current application on the grounds that the site is immediately
adjacent to residential properties and as such, concerns are raised over the harmful impact
the development would have on the amenity of neighbouring properties through noise and
general disturbances.
These concerns relate predominantly to the general use of the site as an A4 (wine bar) use
and the disturbances that would be created by matters that cannot be easily controlled by the
applicant or the Council. These concerns include the milling around of people on the
pavement in close proximity to the adjacent properties. This would be of particular concern
given that the premises does not benefit from private outdoor space and those wanting to go
outside, including smokers, will congregate on the pavement, thus causing a disturbance to
residents living in close proximity to the application property. It is also noted that the Planning
Statement submitted with the application advises that “the venue is to be ancillary to the
existing business sited at 14 Huddersfield Road, a place for existing guests to go before and
after their meal”. Such operation of the wine bar will only serve to heighten the disturbances
caused to adjacent residents with the continual movement of patrons past residential
properties as they travel between the restaurant and wine bar.
It is also considered that such disturbances are likely to increase in summer months, where
patrons are more likely to spend time outside the premises and also when doors and windows
of the building are more likely to be open, allowing internal noise to break out of the building
leading to disturbances to local residents. This would nevertheless occur at other times as
noise breakout will occur as patrons enter and leave the premises.
Since refusal of the last application, it is noted that the applicant has submitted additional
information with regards to how the business will operate in order to reduce impacts on the
neighbours. These measures are noted and Environmental Health Officers have confirmed
that they have taken these into account in their comments. However, the measures proposed
do not remove the concerns raised in regards to residential amenity and the development
would result in unacceptable harm due to the disturbances that would be caused to residents.
Furthermore, it must also be noted that should the applicants choose to leave the premises at
some point in the future, the A4 use would still exist and future users may not operate in such
a responsible manner.
Officers have also considered whether the imposition of conditions could satisfactorily address
these concerns and protect the amenity of neighbouring residents, for example a condition
restricting opening hours or requiring the premises to operate in accordance with a
management plan to be agreed prior to the use being implemented. Specifically, the
environmental health officer has considered whether opening hours of 08:00-18:00 would
overcome these concerns, however they have concluded that the use would still be likely to
unduly affect the amenity of nearby residents even with restricted hours. Notwithstanding this,
it is noted that an appeal was lodged and subsequently withdrawn in relation to the previous
refusal (14/01227). In the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission, the
Council’s case to the Planning Inspector would have made clear what planning conditions
could have been imposed by the Inspector had he/she been minded to allow the appeal. In
this case, such conditions would have sought to restrict opening hours and ensure the
appropriate management of the premises.
In light of the above, it is considered that, in spite of the local centre location, the proposal
would not be compatible with adjacent residential uses and would cause excessive levels of
noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenity of the occupants of these nearby
residential properties. Whilst some mitigation could be made through the use of planning
conditions the measures proposed to protect residents would unfortunately not address the
concerns raised and the proposed use would lead to unacceptable adverse impacts on the
occupants of nearby residential properties. As such, the application is unacceptable in this
regard and contrary to policies S/6, S/10 EM/1, EM/2 and EM/3 of the Rochdale Unitary
Development Plan and the NPPF.
Highway safety
It is noted that objectors have raised concerns over the potential highway implications, with
concerns over the absence of parking and the siting of the property on a busy junction. To fully
assess such matters, consultations have been carried out with highway services and they
have raised no objection to the development. The site is located within a local centre at a
busy junction, the current use operates without off road parking and there are existing parking
and waiting restrictions in the area. As such, the proposed change of use is acceptable in
terms of highway safety and in accordance with policies G/A/1, BE/1 and BE/2 of the UDP.
Summary
It is recognised that in support the vitality and viability of the local centre, such uses are
promoted where they would retain a good mix of services. The vitality of the local centre must
however be balanced against any adverse impacts that would arise from the proposed use. As
noted above, the proposed use would give rise to undue noise and disturbance that would
have a harmful and unacceptable impact on the occupants of nearby residential properties. In
the case of this application, there are material concerns with regards to the harm that would be
caused to residential amenity and unfortunately, the harm that would arise would not be
outweighed by the regenerative benefits of bringing the premises back into use. As such, the
proposal is contrary to policies S/16 and S/10 of the UDP and the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
1. The application site is located immediately adjacent to residential properties to the
north east. The change of use from offices to a wine bar would have a detrimental
impact on the occupiers of these dwellings through excessive levels of noise and
disturbance. This would have a harmful and unacceptable impact on residential
amenity and the application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework and policies S/6, S/10, EM/1, EM/2 and EM/3 of the Rochdale Unitary
Development Plan.
Report Author Rachel Carney