Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on a change of use from retail (A1) to hot food takeaway (A5) and the installation of an extraction flue to the rear of 8 Woodland Hill, Whitkirk, Leeds, LS15 7DG.

(Report attached)

This application sought planning permission for a change of use of a ground floor retail unit A1 to a hot food takeaway (A5) and the installation of an extractor flue to the rear of Woodhall Hill.

The application was brought to Plans Panel at the request of Cllr. Lyons, who objected to the application primarily due to traffic generation/safety issues but also raised residential amenity concerns.

Cllr. Hayden also raised objection to the application due to the amount of traffic the takeaway would generate in a very residential area and the crescent shaped, restricted nature of the road layout. The fact that there is already a Chinese takeaway on the small parade and there is also the risk of increase nuisance and noise for the residents.

Members were informed that this unit was on a parade of 7 shops with flats above. The parade currently has a hair studio and off licence newsagents. The parade is located close to the Leodis public house.

Members noted the unit was previously used as a shop, that the Chinese takeaway had been there a number of years, and the unit next door was currently used as storage for the newsagent.

Plans and photographs were shown to the Panel on the layout and the flue design and the position of the flue which would be located to the rear of the unit. The rear of the parade is not a public thoroughfare but the fats are accessed from the rear.

Members were reminded of a similar application in Collingham was had been refused and that Council had lost and had to pay costs when the applicant appealed.

Mr McQueen a local resident addressed the Panel explaining that the layby at the front of the parade could only take four cars and that the hair studio usually used two of these spaces.

He informed the Members that the smell from the takeaway bothered the residents in the vicinity and that litter was an issue which he had raised with Environmental Services.

Mr McQueen also informed Members that he had recently heard of a re-occurring drainage problem at that unit.

Mr McQueen informed the Panel that there had been 7 objections to the application and a petition. When he had queried the petition he was informed that it had not been received.

He said that there was a problem with teenagers in the area and parking was an issue with Templestowe Gardens being used as a turning area for vehicles using the parade.

He informed Members that he had only 3 days notice of this application and in his view this was not enough notification for an application. He also informed the Panel that none of the Councillors for the area had been able to attend the meeting.

Members asked officers if a resident’s only parking scheme could be used. Highways explained that it was not considered justifiable in this instance as the existing use would have its own parking demand and the parade benefited from a parking layby to the front.  Regarding the road safety concerns that had been expressed, the Highway officer advised that they had checked accidents in this area and there had been none in the past 5 years.

In response to questions from Members in relation to notification of the application officers informed Members that the flats above and immediate neighbours on Templestowe Gardens would have been notified by letter.

The Officer informed the Panel that Planning had discharged their duty as they had posted a notice on the closest lamp post to the unit.

The officer was unsure why the petition had not been received.

Members discussed the follow points:

·  The drainage issues at the unit

·  The proposed hours of opening for the takeaway

·  Littering issues

·  Parking issues

·  Planning notification

·  The petition

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred - so the application can be re-advertised and an updated officer report prepared