Proposal: Change of Use from Restaurant to Mixed Use Restaurant with Takeaway (sui generis use) and minor configuration of the kerb, a new refuse store and cycle parking.

A Member raised concern that the scheme would result in an increase in litter, noise and road traffic accidents at the location.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed by the committee that condition five around bin store provision would be amended to include external bins for customers.

Whilst it was noted that the site was in an area with active and sustainable modes of transport available to visitors, many would have to cross two roads on a busy roundabout on the A30 at the bottom of Egham Hill.  There was also concern in the anticipated increase in footfall from three people per hour to 19 people per hour. A member stated that they had been informed that there had been seven road traffic accidents in the vicinity of the location in the past six years.

The Head of Planning advised that most of the matters being raised around highways safety was an existing problem and in planning terms it was necessary to consider what additional harm would be caused by the increased number of movements on the site and whether or not a severe impact would arise.  From the data provided by Surrey County Council as highways agency that number of movements would not increase to a material extent, and in the absence of an objection from Surrey County Council as Highway Authority it would be very challenging to defend a reason for refusal based on highways safety or capacity. 

Any existing highways matters were for the Highway Authority to consider in its wider role, this planning application could not be expected to address existing matters. If the County Highway Authority considered that there was an existing highway safety matter to address it could consider appropriate measures.  In considering the Application before the committee the Highway Authority would make assessments based on normal usage, and whilst they could not plan for extremes would make reasonable and rational assumptions.

Furthermore it was acknowledged that the site had previously been used as a restaurant and pedestrians had a certain responsibility to look after their own safety, which could not be pinned on an unknown takeaway operator, whilst any existing safety risk associated with pedestrians crossing roads was not for this development to solve.  Whilst it was also acknowledged that Surrey County Council’s recommendations were based on what was defensible, the situation at other sites and striking a balance between some degree of risk and dealing with matters at appeal, officers agreed bring the matter committee’s concerns over road safety in this vicinity to the Highway Authority’s attention.

Addressing concerns about the potential for the pavements to be blocked by scooters, officers advised that there was a reasonable degree of offsite frontage, and whilst not dedicated storage there was room around the periphery of the site.  Furthermore deliveries of such nature were ancillary to restaurant use so permission was not generally required.

During the debate the planning balance around the installation of EV chargers was discussed.  On the basis that the proposed use was for a takeaway unit rather than restaurant, officers had considered that EV charging was not necessary and it would be preferable to keep a turnover of vehicles entering and exiting the car park, rather than encourage vehicles to stay longer in the car park to charge which could have parking capacity issues.  Additionally, the amount of time a vehicle was likely to spend in the car park in collecting a takeaway would not be sufficient to generate a full charge.

Nevertheless, the committee considered the advice from officers and concluded that the trade-off between making efficient use of the car park against the need to provide EV charging in the context of the council’s climate change strategy tipped the balance in favour of installing EV chargers.  The proposal was moved, seconded and agreed by the committee.

A Member asked about the prospect of the Council creating its own Supplementary Design Guide (SPD) to assist with littering.  Officers advised that this wasn’t a matter that had been raised before by the public or Councillors, but it is something that could considered in the future if a significant issue arose in the Borough.

Noting the informative around the ventilation system, a Member considered it appropriate to upgrade the informative to a condition that prior to any change of occupier on site, a scheme of ventilation should be provided to the planning authority dealing with the suitability of the ventilation system, which should be maintained for lifetime of occupancy.

Whilst it was noted that the current ventilation system was appropriate for a pizza/pasta establishment and any change of operator would have environmental health rules to satisfy, the proposal around ventilation was moved, seconded and approved by committee.

Addressing concern about the end user being unknown, the Head of Planning advised that planning permission gets granted for the use of land rather than specific occupiers, whilst any material change in the building may require future planning permission.  Advertising would require express advertisement consent.

Resolved that –

The HoP was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:

·       Planning Conditions 1-7, including amended condition 5 to state that the refuse strategy would provide external bins for customers.

·       Additional condition to provide EV charging points in accordance with the council’s parking standards.

·       Additional condition – previously an informative – that prior to any change of occupier on site a scheme of ventilation should be provided to the planning authority dealing with the suitability of ventilation, which should be retained for the lifetime of occupancy.

·       Informatives 1-6 and 8&9 (informative 7 to be a condition as per bullet point above)