Agenda item

18/01762/FUL SITE 10, AERIAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS RODNEY ROAD SOUTHSEA PO4 8SY - Change of use from Retail (CLASS A1) to Coffee Bar (Class A3) with outdoor seating area and associated refuse and cycle stores

Change of use from Retail (CLASS A1) to Coffee Bar (Class A3) with outdoor seating area and associated refuse and cycle stores.


A deputation was made by Mr Leroy on behalf of those who had signed a petition against the proposal, and the additional two hundred objectors, many of whom lived in Summerson Lodge and were concerned about extra noise and traffic around an already busy junction.


The Assistant Director of City Development's Supplementary Matters report contained the following information:


Councillor Vernon-Jackson objected last autumn to the now-withdrawn application for a change of use at the adjacent premises, for a hot food takeaway (18/01649/FUL). Councillor Vernon-Jackson has submitted the same concerns for this current café application, the comments are summarised as follows:


(a)       Loss of amenity to Summerson Lodge residents from extra late night car movements, the extra noise and the extra smell.


(b)       If permission is granted for this unit then the other half of the unit would in effect be allowed to open as a takeaway as well, as the planning precedent has been established.  This would be even worse for local residents amenities.


(c)       May cause significant traffic problems at one of the city's busiest junctions. There is no turn available from Rodney Road into this unit and traffic leaving this site will have to turn around on Rodney Rd to get to the lights which then won't allow them to turn right onto Milton Rd. This will then force them to use the Euston Rd rat run.


(d)       PSC14 says the city council is wanting to improve the health of residents and reduce Obesity, an extra take away pizza premise is the opposite.


The points can be addressed as follows:


(a)       Condition 3 restricts the café to daytime use only;


(b)       I do not consider approval of the café application would set a precedent for a somewhat different proposal for a takeaway use next door, which would likely have different hours proposed, and different noise and odour matters to address;


(c)       The Transportation Department raises no objection to the proposals on highway safety maters, including the access/circulation points raised;


(d)     PCS14 does not discuss restricting the number or type of food outlets.  It is not considered this matter would constitute a reason for refusal that could be successfully defended in the event of an appeal.


Environmental Health requested a second condition (that has not been published, in error), to address the control of odour, that condition should now be attached as follows:


'No cooking process other than the preparation of hot beverages: toasting of bread; or the heating of food in microwave oven, or domestic cooking devices shall be undertaken within the Class A3 premises unless a suitable kitchen extraction ventilation system has been installed in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority through a formal planning application.


Reason:  To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential uses in accordance with Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.


Lastly, for completeness, it should be noted that a recent application for 'Prior Approval' of the use of the first floor offices as residential accommodation was refused (ref. 18/00015/PACOU), because the application was submitted against the wrong part of the Permitted Development Regulations, and due to parking concerns.


Members' Questions


Arising from members' questions the following matters were clarified:


·         That the application would generate fewer trips than a class A1 development in the same place.


·         That it was a polluted junction, and there were concerns for the users of the coffee terrace.


·         That there were no objections from the Highway and Transportation Department, and that it was for the Committee to decide whether it wanted to take into consideration the traffic issues that had been raised.


RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report by the Assistant Director of City Development.