Agenda item

Change of use of first floor from 1 x 2-bed flat (Use Class C3) to mixed use restaurant (Use Class A3) and takeaway (Use Class A5), involving installation of fire escape to rear and alterations to side and rear elevations.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a Member site visit.

Change of use of first floor from 1 x 2-bed flat (Use Class C3) to mixed use restaurant (Use Class A3) and takeaway (Use Class A5), involving installation of fire escape to rear and alterations to side and rear elevations.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in support of the application and informed the Committee that the change of use of the first floor was requested to enable the restaurant below to expand. It was noted that this would result in a loss of a residential unit however West Drayton had seen an increase in the development of flats near the local high street. It was explained that the first floor flat was already in bad condition and would take several months to refurbish. There was a concern that the area would not grow economically if businesses were not supported. The petitioner had consulted with a sound specialist to limit noise ensuring that it did not impact neighbours. It was highlighted that the flat was not suitable for renting purposes and would require an investment of £50k. A local agent had undertaken a survey and confirmed that rent costs would be £950 after being refurbished. However, in its current state, it would be difficult to rent the property and would remain vacant. The concern regarding precedent setting and losing a residential unit was weighed against the contribution the restaurant would make to the local community.

In response to Member questions, it was confirmed that the first floor would be used as a second kitchen however if this would cause a noise nuisance to neighbours, then it would just be used as a dining area. It was noted that there were no internal photos of the premises, the petitioner was the leaseholder, the freeholder had no intention of investing money to renovate the property and it could not be let in its current form. The length of time the flat had been empty was unknown.

Councillor Jan Sweeting, Ward Councillor for West Drayton, addressed the Committee and supported the petition. It was noted that the existing restaurant supported the local community, adding to the vitality of the West Drayton town centre. The petition had been signed by 117 residents and it was emphasised that community facilities were needed to support the area in light of the increased population. The restaurant contributed to the feel of the area, the business brought quality to the area and would encourage investment in the area. The Council needed to encourage independent businesses and as the population was increasing, there were not enough places to have a sit down meal as a family. The expense needed to renovate the flat would not be cost effective. The Committee was asked to consider this proposal under special circumstances and it was noted that a nearby bar was recently replaced with flats. West Drayton lacked businesses inviting people to the local area and the Committee was urged to support the expansion of the restaurant.

In response to Member questions, it was confirmed that the freeholder was very supportive of the restaurant and wished for it to be expanded.

The Head of Planning explained that there was a policy in relation to exceptional circumstances but the London Plan Strategic Policy had no leeway to allow the loss of a residential unit. The London Plan policy was explained to the Committee and the loss of housing would be restricted as there was a housing need in London. There was more flexibility in relation to retail premises however this proposal had some serious policy issues.

The Committee asked for clarification on what would be considered as exceptional circumstances. It was explained that residential units had previously been lost for health facilities. It was noted there was no mechanism to enforce the freeholder to renovate the property and housing legislation dealt with empty homes.

Members considered that the property was a loss of a unit as it would not be renovated or rented and had been vacant for a period of time. It also considered that the Council had multiple responsibilities including enhancing the vitality of town centres allowing successful businesses to grow.

The Committee bore in mind that each application was based on its own merits and that it would be more beneficial for the freeholder to rent the property as a flat than a commercial premises. Members agreed to defer this application for a site visit to consider further information such as pictures of the flat, visiting the premises in person and finding out how long it had been vacant for.

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that deferring the application for a Member site visit to gain further information sounded practical.

A motion to defer the application to a site visit was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to a Member site visit.