Agenda item

Application Proposal: Change of use of ground floor from bank to restaurant (Use Class A3 food and drink) to include internal and external alterations (Revised application)

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application was for the change of use of an existing bank to a restaurant. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images to show the proposed plans and photographs to show building, pointed out that there was a two-storey maisonette above. He also provided images of the garden owned by the owners of the two-storey maisonette above and explained that the restaurant would be directly below.

He explained to members that there would be no adverse impact on the building, which was a listed building and explained that the proposal gave the building a viable use. However, he advised that there had been significant concern for the resident above. After consulting the Environmental Health Team, he confirmed that they were content that, subject to a number of conditions, the scheme would not cause any amenity issues to neighbours.

A member of the Castle Cary Town Council addressed members. She explained that the Town Council had concerns over the residential amenity for the resident of the property above. She explained that the resident had lived in the property above for 11 years and pointed out that this was a second application to change the use of the ground floor to a restaurant. She advised members that the proposal includes a pizza oven, which would be situation directly below the above residents bedroom. She explained that pizza ovens reach extremely high temperatures and felt that this would represent a fire risk. She also questioned whether the condition to ensure that all door and windows would be complied with during the summer months.  She added that there was another restaurant close by with a pizza oven and felt that this was not needed.

Local residents addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         There had been a number of objections to the application, including one from the Town Council.

·         The area was not a commercial area and was surrounded by residential properties.

·         There were already noise and smell issues in the area which would be made worse by this proposal.

·         Retail or office use would be more appropriate for the area.

·         The amenity of the resident above should be protected.

·         Should correct noise testing be carried out, the proposal would fail.

·         It is unrealistic to think that doors and windows would remain closed during the summer months. This condition highlights that the two uses, residential and restaurant, are incompatible in this building.

·         The pizza over below will affect the ability of the owner above to enjoy her home peacefully.

·         The building is not appropriate for this use.

·         The road is narrow and does not provide easy access for emergency service vehicles. There is an inadequate amount of car parking available.

·         There is no disabled access to the building.

The agent address the committee. He advised members that the proposal was for a high quality restaurant and that significant restoration works had been carried out to the building. He felt that the principles accorded with planning policy and that visually, the building would largely remain unchanged. He also advised that the applicant had offered reduced opening hours. He added that the proposal had not received any objections from any statutory consultees and suggested that if the site was slightly smaller, that planning permission would not be required.

Councillor Nick Weeks, the Ward Member, explained that the resident in the property above needed to be protected, however wished to see a more vibrant High Street. He suggested that more could be done by the applicant to overcome the issues and to allow the resident above to live there peacefully.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, also Ward Member, advised that the property above would become unsellable and that it would be difficult to obtain a mortgage on the property. He pointed out that there were two other restaurants nearby, one of which already had a pizza oven. He explained that he had concerns over car parking and access for emergency service vehicles and agreed with the comments made by Councillor Nick Weeks.

The representative of the Parish Council asked for confirmation that the letter provided by the neighbours planning consultant had been added to the website. The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the letter had been on the website since it had been received.

One member expressed concern over the extraction system to be used by the restaurant, particularly the pizza oven. He also expressed concern that the type of food to be cooked could not be restricted once permission had been approved.

Another member advised the committee that there were other restaurants in towns, close to residential areas. However, she explained that outdoor events would cause problems and noted that the application needed careful consideration, as there was a flat immediately above the proposed restaurant.

During the discussion, several members expressed concern for the residential amenity of the occupier of the flat above the proposed restaurant and some commented that more could be carried out to mitigate the problem. Members also expressed concern that the flat above would become unsellable as it can be hard to obtain a mortgage on properties above restaurants.

Members also discussed whether there might be any restrictive covenants on the premises, however the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that these could not be considered here today and that any possible covenants would remain in place regardless of a planning approval.

The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that with the proposed conditions, planning permission would be required to allow the restaurant to provide a take-away food service. He also advised that, in response to a comment made by the agent, that planning permission would be required to use any part of the building as a restaurant, regardless of the size, as the building was listed.

The Senior Planning Advisor summarised the options for members, advising that additional conditions could be added to control and manage food odour. He advised that should the application be deferred, the assessment over the noise and odour could be looked at.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be deferred to allow time to further investigate measures to protect the residential amenity of the occupier of the property above.

On being put to the vote, there were 5 votes in support of deferring the application and 5 against. The Chairman used his casting vote and resolved that the application should be deferred to allow further negotiations on all aspects of residential amenity.

This was agreed 6 votes in support and 5 votes against, with the Chairman using his casting vote in support of deferring the application.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/02664/FUL be deferred to allow further negotiations with the applicant on all aspects of amenity relating to the residential occupation of the first floor flat, including odour, noise, the need for restaurant flues and their location and appearance.

(voting: 6 votes in support and 5 against. The Chairman used his casting vote in support of the application being deferred)