Agenda item

Minster Alarms, Suncliffe House, 157 New Lane, Huntington, York. (10/00342/FUL)

This application is for to the conversion of the southern part of the ground floor of Suncliffe House for the sale of hot food providing a delivery service only.  [Huntington/New Earswick] [Site Visit]

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Mr Hazan Hazar, for a change of use of part of the ground floor of a two storey detached building from retail (use class A1) to sale of hot food (initially thought to be use class A5) for delivery purposes only.

 

Officers advised the Committee that following further investigation, it was clear that the proposed use did not fall within use class A5 as the proposed uses primary purpose was not for the sale of hot food to take away for consumption off the premises by visiting members of the public. The delivery to home service would involve the preparation of a product for sale which would be manufacturing with related distribution activity and was usually considered by inspectors to fall within use class B2 (General Industry). However given the potential for odours, it would fall outside class B1 (Business)

 

Officers explained that their recommendation and proposed conditions remained unchanged due to the change of use but asked the Committee to note that the application description should read “Change of Use of part ground floor from retail (use class A1) to hot food delivery-to-home service (use class B2). They also advised that Reference to Policy S6 should be replaced with Policy E4 (Employment development on Unallocated Land). This policy allows employment uses of a scale appropriate to the locality within defined settlement limits where it involves conversion of existing buildings. The requested that Condition 4 be amended to refer to the preparation and cooking of food for consumption off the premises by delivery only and for no other purpose.

 

They stated that the Environmental Protection Unit and Highway Network Management Team had been consulted and had raised no objections subject to conditions. They also advised that additional correspondence had been received from local residents reiterating their objection to the application on the basis of increased traffic, noise and smell and seeking a guarantee that the business would remain delivery only.  (A full copy of the officer’s update was published online with the agenda after the meeting)

 

Representations in objection to the application were received from a neighbour, speaking on behalf of residents of New Lane. He raised concerns that any further deliveries or increase in traffic would impact on safety at what was already a busy junction in a predominantly residential area with a lot of elderly residents. He also stressed that the increased noise and smell associated with the business would impact on residential amenity with the business operating 15 hours a day seven days a week. He questioned the viability of the business and raised concerns that the conditions may not be adhered to. He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Members noted the concerns raised by the speaker. They acknowledged that the application had the potential for increased noise and disturbance leading to loss of amenity for local residents especially due to deliveries in the evening and noted the possible increase in traffic at a busy T junction and issues regarding access for delivery vehicles due to overnight parking of Minster Alarms vehicles on the site. They voiced the opinion that the need to deliver food to residents who may live very nearby, and would normally be able to collect from a takeaway,  was not environmentally sustainable.

 

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

 

REASON:                  The proposal, due to the nature of the use and location in a predominantly residential street, would introduce activity late into the evening from potentially frequent vehicle movements associated with the delivery service. This would result in increased noise levels and disturbance at a time when adjacent residents could expect less disturbance from commercial activity and vehicle movements, to the detriment of the residential amenity that adjacent occupants presently enjoy.

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page