125.1 Councillor Wendy Marchant re-joined the committee after the completion of application DC/19/00859 but before the commencement of DC/19/00336.

125.2 Councillor Jessica Fleming attended the meeting as Ward Member for applications DC/19/00336 & DC/19/00337 only.

125.3 Item 2

Application           DC/19/00336

Proposal               Planning Application. Change of Use of ground floor to A5 Hot Food Takeaway. Installation of extract equipment internally and flue through roof. Internal alterations to provide sound and fire-proofing to party walls and floors.

Site Location       RICKINGHALL INFERIOR- Bell Hill Cottage and The Newsagent, The Street, Rickinghall Inferior, IP22 1BN

Applicant               Mr Y Karakus

125.4 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members, the layout of the site, the planning history of the property, the contents of the tabled papers. The Case Officer concluded the presentation with an amendment to the recommendation to add an additional condition as follows:

·         That the occupancy of the living space be restricted to an employee of the business.

125.5 The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the response from the Council’s Environmental Health team, the response from Suffolk Fire and Rescue, the internal layout of the proposal, and the acoustic and fireproofing treatment proposed.

125.6 Members considered the representation from Geoff Short of Rickinghall Parish Council, who spoke against the application.

125.7 Members considered the representation from William Sargeant of Botesdale Parish Council, who spoke against the application.

125.8 The Parish Council representatives responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the current provision of parking in proximity to existing takeaway establishments and the heritage value of the property.

125.9 Members considered the representation from Antek Lejk who spoke as an Objector.

125.10 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the impact that the property would have on the residential amenity.

125.11 Members considered the representation from Ben Elvin who spoke as the agent on behalf of the Applicant.

125.12 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the proposed separation of the electricity supplies, the responses from Environmental Health and Suffolk Fire and Rescue, and the freestanding fireproof acoustic boarding would be in line with the profile of the existing structure.

125.13 Members considered the representation from Councillor Jessica Fleming, Ward member, who spoke against the application.

125.14 Members debated the application on the issues including: the detrimental impact on residential amenity, the impact on the heritage asset, the preservation of the conservation area.

125.15 Councillor Derrick Haley proposed that the application be refused on the reasons as follows:

Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that all developments should “create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users”

This approach flows into Local Plan Policy E12 (General Principles for location, design and layout of industrial and commercial development) of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), which states

“When considering proposals for new development or extensions to existing industrial or commercial premises the District Planning Authority will have regard to the following criteria:

….development should not adversely affect the neighbouring properties or land uses by reason of undue environmental disturbance such as noise, vibration, smell, noxious emissions or dust…”

Similarly, Policy H16 (Protecting Residential Amenity) states that the District Planning Authority will refuse development that materially reduces the amenity of adjacent dwellings and will also refuse “change to non-residential use, where such a change would materially and detrimentally affect the amenity of the area by means of … nuisance or safety”

In this instance it is proposed to convert an existing A1 unit to A5 hot food takeaway.  The only access for users of the A5 use would be from the front entrance of the building which would lead to nuisance in terms of smell and noise to the rooms above, which form part of the flying freehold.  There would also be general noise and disturbance resulting from such a proposed use, in respect of access to and from the site.

This is considered to materially reduce the amenity of adjacent dwellings, contrary to Local Plan Policies E12 and H16. 

Therefore the proposal by reason of impacts on neighbouring properties in respect of noise, disturbance, smell, access to the site from cars, including as a result of insufficient parking provision, and comings and goings in close proximity to neighbouring residents would have an unacceptable material impact on the amenity of adjacent dwellings contrary to Local Plan Policies E12 and H16, and paragraphs 12, 47 and 127 of the NPPF. 

125.16 Councillor Roy Barker seconded the motion.

125.17 By a unanimous vote

125.18 RESOLVED  

Refusal on following grounds:

Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that all developments should “create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users”

This approach flows into Local Plan Policy E12 (General Principles for location, design and layout of industrial and commercial development) of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan (1998), which states

“When considering proposals for new development or extensions to existing industrial or commercial premises the District Planning Authority will have regard to the following criteria:

….development should not adversely affect the neighbouring properties or land uses by reason of undue environmental disturbance such as noise, vibration, smell, noxious emissions or dust…”

Similarly, Policy H16 (Protecting Residential Amenity) states that the District Planning Authority will refuse development that materially reduces the amenity of adjacent dwellings and will also refuse “change to non-residential use, where such a change would materially and detrimentally affect the amenity of the area by means of … nuisance or safety”

In this instance it is proposed to convert an existing A1 unit to A5 hot food takeaway.  The only access for users of the A5 use would be from the front entrance of the building which would lead to nuisance in terms of smell and noise to the rooms above, which form part of the flying freehold.  There would also be general noise and disturbance resulting from such a proposed use, in respect of access to and from the site.

This is considered to materially reduce the amenity of adjacent dwellings, contrary to Local Plan Policies E12 and H16. 

Therefore the proposal by reason of impacts on neighbouring properties in respect of noise, disturbance, smell, access to the site from cars, including as a result of insufficient parking provision, and comings and goings in close proximity to neighbouring residents would have an unacceptable material impact on the amenity of adjacent dwellings contrary to Local Plan Policies E12 and H16, and paragraphs 12, 47 and 127 of the NPPF.