Agenda item

(Councillors Bean and Longbottom re-joined the meeting.)

 

The Assistant Director for Planning:

 

1. advised that the application sought planning permission to change the use of the ground floor of the property at 5 Silver Street, Lincoln from a betting shop (Sui Generis) to a hot food take-away (Sui Generis)

 

2. reported on the property’s location on the south side of Silver Street, a three-storey building with a shop front at the ground floor and further shop units to both sides of the building, situated in Lincoln’s Primary Shopping Area

 

3. confirmed that the site was located within Conservation Area No.1- Cathedral and City Centre

 

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

 

 

5. advised Planning Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:

 

 

6. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

7. referred to the Update Sheet tabled at tonight’s meeting which included an additional comment received in relation to the planning application

 

8. concluded that:

 

 

Mr Leo Scott Smith, on behalf of Dominic O’Malley, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, covering the following points:

 

·         He worked as CEO of a young technology company which had recently moved into the building at 5 Silver Street Lincoln.

·         He was also Vice-Chair of Lincoln Town Deal Board.

·         The reason for making an objection to this planning application was due to his company having recently moved into 5 Silver Street offices after spending £30,000-£40,000 on its renovation, completed February 2021.

·         An Art Gallery operated from the floor above them which promoted art shows for the University of Lincoln.

·         He had spent some time in the past residing in student houses located above take-away businesses.

·         The operation of the hot take-away extraction fans would be loud and carry an unpleasant smell.

·         The company had rejected other locations for their new office space due to similar reasons.

·         The company would be forced to move away from the City if this planning application was granted.

·         This would result in the removal of a company which had contributed greatly to Lincoln’s economy in terms of technological expertise.

·         In terms of planning perspective, the proposed use of the ground floor of the building would not provide the business operator with adequate space for waste facilities.

·         The proposal represented a poor standard of design.

·         The building was very old, separation of floors was organised via a dropped ceiling and wooden floorboards which allowed any smells to penetrate easily.

·         The extraction fans would block access into his office space.

·         There was inadequate space for provision of wheelie binds to facilitate the operation of the take-away.

·         The option for members to determine here was either the retention of an Art Gallery/Technology business in the City or another hot food take-away in the area.

 

The Committee considered the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments emerged in support of the planning application

 

·         The Committee was limited in its powers by planning law.

·         Conditions may prove sufficient to control the operation of the take-away business, although concerns raised by the business operating above were understood.

·         Waste room facilities to the proposed accommodation were shown as present on the floor plans.

·         Guidance from the Environment Officer pointed to adequate extraction facilities.

 

The following concerns emerged in relation to the planning application

 

·         It was important to protect jobs in the city There were already 1.5 hot food take-away’s per 1,000 people higher than average in the area. It was questionable whether we needed another.

·         There were plenty of hot food take-aways in the area, this high-tech business deserved a space to work in the City Centre.

·         There was little detail provided by the Applicant to support the planning application, for example, design and access statements to mitigate potential adverse impacts from the operation of the new business on local amenity.

·         The change of use would be detrimental to the occupants of nearby properties/the offices above and harmful to the environment.

 

Members asked:

 

·         Why wasn’t there an up-to-date police response included in the agenda pack.

·         Why was this application before Planning Committee?

·         Why was the applicant not present this evening to speak?

 

The Chair advised that the applicant had not taken up his opportunity to respond.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning provided the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         This planning application had come to Committee due to the number of objections received as part of the consultation process. It was unusual to receive so many responses to this type of proposal.

·         The main issues raised related to fume extraction/storage/waste mythology.

·         Environmental Control Officers were satisfied with the scheme in terms of measures proposed in mitigation against noise/fume extraction.

·         Should there become a problem it could be dealt with via Statutory Nuisance legislation.

·         Following consultation with the Environmental Control Officer, Planning officers were satisfied with the proposed development subject to the recommended conditions being imposed.

·         In terms of the principle of use, Local Plan Policy stated this type of business was acceptable in a Mixed-Use Area.

·         There were other considerations here in respect of impact on the vitality and viability of the local area. It was the gift of members to determine whether they considered that this balance had been breached.

·         The response from Lincolnshire Police contained within the agenda pack was a clerical error. It referred to another application.

 

Members queried whether a condition should be imposed relating to the dropped ceiling to prevent fume penetration and asked what percentage of smell would be taken away by the extraction system.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning responded as follows:

 

·         It was unlikely for a solution to be achieved which removed 100% of smells from the operation of a fume extraction system. Impact was dependent on the type of use of the premises and at what time of day/night the business was in operation.

·         There was no restriction imposed on the hours of operation of the premises here; although hot food take-aways tended to open late at night he was not aware of its hours of operation.

·         There was no evidence of potential issues concerning fume extraction through the floors. This was normally controlled by insulation material. Should there be any problems this would be picked up through the legislative powers of the Environmental Officer.

 

Members further considered the impact from the operation of the business on the viability of local businesses as they felt this was a valid concern.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning advised that vitality/viability of the Central Mixed-Use Area/Conservation Area could be considered as a material planning concern dependent upon the degree of positive/negative impact imposed from the proposed operation of the business.

 

A motion was proposed, seconded, put to the vote and;

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons for refusal of planning permission were discussed by Members.

 

Reasons for refusal were proposed, seconded, put to the vote, and RESOLVED as follows:

 

Reasons

 

1)    The proposed use would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the mixed-use character of the area due to the compounding effect when combined with the number of existing hot food takeaways in the locality. This resulting imbalance in the mixed-use nature of the area would be contrary to policy LP33

 

2)    The applicant had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that fume extraction had been adequately addressed. The result would be undue harm to the amenities of the uses above and adjacent the application site, contrary to policy LP33