Agenda item

The Planning Manager:

 

a.    advised that planning permission was sought for the change of use from financial and professional services (use class A2) to restaurant/cafe (use class A3) with ancillary takeaway (use class A5) and associated external alterations at 21-22 Bailgate, Lincoln

 

b.    described the premises as a two storey end terrace building sited on the corner of Bailgate and Westgate formerly occupied by Lloyds TSB at ground level

 

c.    highlighted that the building was not listed but located within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area

 

d.    provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Policy LP33   Lincoln's City Centre Primary Shopping Area and Central Mixed Use Area

·         Policy LP25   The Historic Environment

·         Policy LP26   Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

                       

e.    outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise, which included a signed petition received against the proposed scheme

 

f.     referred to the update sheet which contained a further response received from Bailgate Guild requesting that the planning application be deferred, although officers were satisfied that all relevant information was before Planning Committee this evening, together with an additional proposed condition in relation to the planning application

 

g.    advised members of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regard to:

 

·         Accordance with National and Local Planning Policy

·         Impact on Neighbouring Uses

·         Impact on Visual Amenity and the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

·         Highway Safety

 

h.    concluded that the change of use would be appropriate for the Central Mixed Use Area, would add to the mixture of uses in the vicinity and subject to conditions would not cause undue harm to neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies LP25, LP26 and LP33 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The Chair requested clarification from officers that the correct consultation process had been carried out in light of concerns received within the consultee responses from local businesses.

 

The Planning Manager confirmed that the normal consultation process had been followed which included a notice displayed on site giving 21 days’ notice according to the formal consultation process.

 

Mr Ben Barber, addressed Planning Committee in opposition to the proposed development, representing consultee responders’, covering the following main points:

 

·         He wanted to offer his considerations as to why the planning proposals should not go ahead.

·         The takeaway was claimed to be secondary to the main business. However, it would become the main business being a fish and chip shop.

·         The size of the building was not conducive to a takeaway being at the back of the property on a narrow, cobbled street.

·         This planning application would set a precedent being the first takeaway in the area.

·         Other planning applications not suitable for the area may occur.

·         Issues of access/egress with very limited parking in the area.

·         The proposed opening times until midnight were excessive. Most of the local area shut down at 11.00pm.

·         Issues of littering.

·         Noise issues from extraction fans.

·         Issues of smell extracted metres from the Castle wall, adjacent to the site of St Paul in the Bail with viewing platform/seating for visitors overlooking the historic well.

 

Members accepted the petition received from local residents.

 

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

Individual members made comments in support of the proposed development as follows:

 

·         The objections seemed to be against the premises being a fish and chip shop.

·         A seafood/fish restaurant would have been viewed differently.

·         The building could accommodate the proposed use.

·         The fact that the business may have a financial effect on others in the area was not a valid reason for it to be refused planning permission.

·         Any precedent would not be set as each planning application was judged on its individual merits.

·         The ancillary takeaway was adjacent to ample public car parking facilities.

·         To have more available eating choice in the area was a positive move.

·         The building would not remain empty and would be improved.

·         The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposals.

·         Areas in the south of the city had takeaway outlets.

 

Other individual members commented as follows:

 

·         A takeaway in the heart of the Cathedral Quarter was not ideal.

·         Support was offered to the restaurant to widen the scope for eating choices in the area but not the takeaway.

·         A variation to restrict the hours of the takeaway as a licensed premises until 11.00pm was suggested.

 

The Planning Manager offered the following points of clarification:

 

·         Environmental Protection colleagues had no objection to the premises remaining open until midnight, considering that the opening hours of other premises in the immediate area were set to similar times.

·         It was within the gift of Planning Committee to vary the opening hours of the premises, although it would not be achievable to have the takeaway component shutting earlier than the restaurant and would need to be applied to the whole premises.

·         Any change in closing time would need to take into account the rationale of ‘why here’ whilst other businesses in the area stayed open later.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1. The petition submitted be received.

 

2. Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.