APPLICATION NO: WARD: 14 08/01881/COU PROPOSAL: Change of use from A1(shop) to A5 (Hot food Take-away) LOCATION: 11 Town Hall Street Sowerby Bridge HX6 2EA APPLICANT: Mr K Khan Pi Nia REPRESENTATIONS: One Refuse RECOMMENDATION: DEPARTURE: Nia Description of Site and Proposal The site is located on Town Hall Street in the centre of Sowerby Bridge and the last use was as an A‘ Christian Centre shop. The application seeks planning permission for a change of use from the ground floor shop to hot food take-away. No changes to the shop front are proposed the only changes involved are to provide a serving counter, bin store, extraction canopy and cooker/stove. An extemal flue has not been provided as it is intended to discharge fumes via the existing chimney. int Planning History An application was refused in February 2007 ref- 06/02037/CON for a change of use from ground floor Christian Centre shop to Hot Food take-away with external alterations (Chimney Flue), due to potential hazardous of short term customer and delivery vehicle parking, lack of sufficient details regarding sound proofing and impact of the new flue on the listed building.Key Policy Context: Yorkshire and the Humber: E14 Town and City Centres PPGIPPS No: 1 Delivering sustainable development 6 Planning for Town Centres UDP Designation: Town Centre Conservation Area UDP Policies: BE16 Change of use of a Listed Building BE18 Development within a Conservation Area ‘$9 Non-retail Uses in smaller and Local Centres S15 Hot Food Takeaways EP3 Noise Generating development EP1 Protection of Air Quality NE15 Wildlife Corridor Publicity/ Representations The application has been advertised with a press notice and site notice. One representation has been received Summary of points raised + The added noise, intrusion and odour to the private residences adjoining this property would be excessive if the change of use was allowed to go ahead. Does Sowerby Bridge need another take-away. Consultations The following bodies/organisations have been consulted in respect of this application. ‘Where comments have been received these have been taken into account as part of the assessment of the application Head of Engineering Services (Network Section) Head of Environmental Health British Water WaysAssessment of Proposal Principle The site is located within the Sowerby Bridge Conservation area as defined in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE18 states that the character or appearance of Conservation Areas will be preserved or enhanced and that development will only be permitted where the design and siting of proposals respects the setting and townscape/roofscape features of the area and important views within the area are preserved or enhanced. There are no proposed changes to the front of the property and the architectural features are preserved, as such the proposal is not considered detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area Policy $9 concems non-retail uses in smaller and local centres, in local centres it states local centres and other parades of shops where there are no defined shopping frontages, proposals for non-shopping uses will be permitted provided that the number of non-class at uses within the centre does not exceed 35% of the total number of units available within the centre or parade as a whole At the time of writing it appears there is no available data regarding the actual number of shops which are in non-retail use within the defined Sowerby Bridge Town Centre. However a recent walking survey appears to show that out of the total shops in Sowerby Bridge, 13 shops were empty. This would indicate that there is not a shortage of available shopping units to rent and in the case of 11 Town Hall Street rather than have an empty shop remain it would seem more appropriate to fill the empty shop with a use even ifitis a non-retail use. Hence it would seem that in principle the development would meet with the purposes of policy S9. Policy $15 states that proposals for hot food takeaways will be permitted where no unacceptable environmental, safety or other problems are created and the proposed development would not increase the level of disturbance or nuisance to that unduly detrimental to enjoyment or residential amenities. The proposals should make adequate and satisfactory arrangements for the discharge of cooking furnes and smells and comply with the other relevant UDP policies. The application site is identified as being in a Wildlife Corridor by the RCUDP. Policy NE15 states that within wildlife corridors the council will only allow development that does Not prejudice the movement of species along the corridor. As the nature of this proposal will not affect the surrounding wildlife itis considered acceptable in relation to NE15. ‘The proposal is considered unacceptable in principle based on the comments received by Engineering Services, as it does not appear to comply with policy $15, This will however be dealt with in further detail under the heading of Highways Considerations.Conservation Issues Policy BE16 states that the change of use of a Listed Building will be permitted where the original use of the building is not longer practicable or appropriate and the new use preserves the architectural character, features or setting. Proposals should incorporate full details of all intended alterations to the building and its curtilage. Internally, partition walls are proposed to separate the kitchen and cooking areas from the toilet facilities and a customer counter is to be constructed. Extraction is to be over the cooking range and to consist of an extraction canopy with filter unit fixed to the wall to not penetrate the ceiling duct work, discharging into the existing chimney stack The extraction system is to be located on the adjoining shop wall. A new sink is proposed to the kitchen area to provide modern sanitary requirements. The floors are to be replaced in the kitchen and waiting areas with new non slip flooring and new ties. Between the shop and the internal staircase leading to the 1* and 2" floors, a 1 hour fire resistant and sound resistant wall is proposed ‘These proposals could be easily reversed and the internal changes will not result in any loss of character to the listed building. It is proposed that this application will be in line with policy BE16 in that the new use will preserve the architectural character, features or setting, to the listed building. The agent has not provided any justification on why the original use of the building is no longer practicable or appropriate, however the new use would still be shop related and it would also seem that the shop has been empty for at least 3 years providing another justification for a change of use. High The Head of Engineering Services has concerns regarding the proposal in relation to its location fronting the A58 Town Hall Street. The ASB is a principal road defined as a category 2 road in the RCUDP, which carries a significant volume of traffic, including heavy goods vehicles and buses. Waiting restrictions on Town Hall Street prohibit waiting at any time and whilst these will be sufficient to deter the longer stay parking it is not considered that they would be sufficient to deter the short stay parking, It is an established fact that hot food takeaway customers try to park as near as possible to the facility. Although there are double yellow lines on Town Hall Street it is unfortunate fact that patrons of takeaways often ignore such restrictions (especially if there are no legal places to park nearby). Short term parking in contravention of the waiting restrictions already occurs as a result of other uses on this length of Town Hall Street and the introduction of additional potentially hazardous short term parking in this location is considered to be likely to result in further interruptions to the free flow of traffic as such refusal is requested It would seem therefore that the proposal would be contrary to policy S15 as it would be likely to result in potentially hazardous short term customer parking and possibly the parking of vehicles being used for deliveries on A58 Town Hall Street, which is close to a bend and a road junction.Drainage The Head of Engineering Services (projects group), has no objections to the proposal but recommends that before commencement of any works on site, details of a scheme to intercept grease in the drainage serving the food preparation and dishwashing areas shall be submitted to the LPA for approval. The scheme should also include proposals for the disposal of the grease to ensure compliance with policy $15, Other issues The Head of Environmental Health have made comments on the proposal due to the premises being in the Town Centre of Sowerby Bridge with a commercial use at ground floor level and residential property above. Environmental Health have raised concems with regard to the existing planning approval for three flats above the commercial premises. They have made a comparison with this application and the application submitted in 2006 that was refused 06/02037/CON. Environmental Health have commented that they recommended refusal of that earlier application as it failed to address the detrimental effect it would have upon the 3 residential flats on the upper fioor. However this application has shown that the kitchen extraction flue would be located internally within the existing chimney. Consequently this would result in the flue passing through 3 independent bedrooms. They say although the applicant has provided details of the kitchen extraction system which includes an attenuator, this will not reduce the structure sound transmission to an acceptable level within these third party premises. They continue to say that as a service they do not like to see internal flues and not ones which pass through third party premises. But if the flue was to be re-sited so that it was attached externally to the gable facade then this service would look favourable upon the application. The problem with the re-siting of a flue externally is that this would ultimately alter the appear of the building, and would thus not be considered acceptable in terms of Policy BE16 or BE18. ‘The Head of Environmental Health conclude that the submitted plans and information have not addressed sound and odour transmission to the residential accommodation on the upper floors. Given the conflicting uses of these premises i.e. A5 and C3 this service normally recommends a non-severance condition, but this is not feasible with this application. Building regulations approval will be required for the existing planning approvals, however in this instance the level of sound insulation will be higher than that required for building regulations. If a noise scheme was to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority then this service would look more favourably upon the application In light of the above-mentioned The Head of Environmental Health would like to recommend the refusal of this application.CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be unacceptable subject to the reasons specified below. The recommendation to refuse planning permission has been made having regard to the policies and proposals in the Calderdale Unitary Development Plan set ‘out in the ‘Key Policy Context’ section above, and there are no material considerations that indicate an exception to policy is justified. Richard Seaman Development Manager Date 17 December 2008 Further Information Should you have any queries in respect of this application report, please contact in the first instance:- Sara Johnson (Case Officer) on Tel No: 392232