Issue - meetings

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.

2.

3.

The application site is located in Lancaster City Centre’s Secondary Retail Frontage area. The proposed takeaway use would, by virtue of the adjoining non-A1 retail uses and the percentage of non-A1 uses along the continuous retail frontage of which the application site forms a part exceeding 20%, be contrary to Policy DM2 of the Development Management DPD. This would have a detrimental impact on the vitality of this part of the City Centre due to the clustering of non-A1 uses. Although the application states that the use would be open during normal daytime trading hours, it would not seek to maintain or enhance footfall in the area during normal retail opening hours due to the nature of the use being proposed. As such, the proposed change of use is contrary to Policy DM2 of the Development Management DPD, and consequently the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly Paragraph 85.

The flue, by virtue of its siting and design (including materials), has a detrimental visual impact on the subject property and causes less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area which is not outweighed by any benefits arising from the proposal.  Therefore the application is contrary to policies DM31 and DM35 of the Development Management DPD, and paragraphs 127, 130, 193 and 196 of the NPPF.

The submission includes insufficient and inconsistent information in relation to the extraction of fumes and odours from the proposed use.  As a result it can only be concluded that the proposal has inadequately addressed this amenity and air pollution issue.  Therefore the application is contrary to policy DM35 of the Development Management DPD, and paragraph 181 of the NPPF.