| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The provision of a new sui generis (takeaway) unit to the rear of the site with access via a car park would create a new standalone frontage in an unsafe and inappropriate area for public trade and comings and goings, which is near to residential properties. The proposed subdivision and access to the new unit away from the main shopping frontage would undermine the character and erode the vitality and viability of the main shopping area and protecting shopping frontage, and would not support the enhancement, appearance, safety and environmental quality of the town centre or the defined retail area frontage, would compromise highway and pedestrian safety for users accessing the rear unit and would remove floor space from a protected shopping frontage unit without appropriate justification or mitigation to minimise its impacts. This would conflict with adopted policies CS6 and CS7 of the Core Strategy (2015), adopted policies R2, R3, R7 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2021), and be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2024) and Emerging Local Plan policy RTC3 (2025 submission draft). |
| 2. | Within the application there is insufficient evidence that the nearby residential properties would not be impacted by noise and odour from the proposed development, as such the application is not in accordance with adopted Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9 or adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policies A1 and R7, and be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2024) and Emerging Local Plan policy HE7 (2025 submission draft). |
| 3. | It is noted that the application would bring into use a currently vacant former retail store within a defined town centre area, but the premises is reported to have been vacant since November 2023, and this is not considered to be a long-term vacant premises, which adopted policy R2 seeks to address. No evidence of attempted marketing or compromised viability has been provided to demonstrate that the unit in its existing form could not provide a suitable format for a more appropriate use in the manner anticipated by adopted and emerging planning policy. In view of the fact that the number of proposed employees are likely to be relatively low, especially so for a takeaway premises, it is not considered that the level of public benefits associated with the development are sufficient to outweigh the conflicts with the development plan as a whole, or the aims and objectives of the emerging local development plan policies and national planning policy framework. There are no other material planning considerations presented to suggest that the application should not be considered in accordance with adopted development plan policy and as such the application must be refused in accordance with section 38(6) of the Act. |
| 4. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
