Agenda item

Erection of single-storey front and rear gazebo canopy structures with operable shutters, open sides with metal mesh material and gazebo metal columns and part covered sides (timber cladding) to rear gazebo structure to facilitate the use of part of the premises as a shisha lounge together with demolition of existing single storey store/office area to rear of premises.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend reason for refusal 1 as agreed by the Committee; and

2.    That the application be refused.

Erection of singly-storey front and rear gazebo canopy structures with operable shutters, open sides with metal mesh material and gazebo metal columns and part covered sides (timber cladding) to rear gazebo structure to facilitate the use of part of the premises as a shisha lounge together with demolition of existing single storey store/office area to rear of premises.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal.

A written representation from petitioners was read out to the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

·       An online e-petition had been supported by a large number of local residents who objected to the opening of a shisha lounge in a residential area;

·       Residents were concerned that, were it to go ahead, the proposal would result in unpleasant smells, loud noise late at night, an increase in parking stress, crime and antisocial behaviour. Moreover, it was felt the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of area;

·       Other shisha lounges already existed in the area therefore a new one was unnecessary;

·       Residents were content with their area which was bustling during the day and settled at night. 

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

·       Concerns regarding parking stress had been addressed in the officer’s report;

·       It was confirmed that the restaurant was well-established, well-managed and had no track record of antisocial behaviour under the current management – there was nothing to suggest that this would change in the future; however were the restaurant not well-managed, the matter would come to the attention of the police and the local Council which would put the current restaurant in jeopardy;

·       A number of other restaurants along the parade were open at night therefore the area was not currently silent at night-time as had been suggested;

·       There were a lot of misconceptions regarding shisha lounges which were simply places where people could meet to socialise, smoke, chat and consume alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The Hillingdon Plan highlighted the need to develop drivers of the economy that fostered social inclusion;

·       If the application were approved, odour and acoustic reports would be obtained and implemented prior to the structure being constructed. Moreover, it was confirmed that only one of the structures (to the front) would proceed;

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent observed that local businesses should be encouraged to rebuild post lockdown. It was reported that the proposed small extended section would have little aesthetic or obstructive impact.

Ward Councillor Darran Davies addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal highlighting concerns regarding the impact of increased parking stress on a busy shopping parade; it was felt said parking stress could result in a loss of revenue to the local shops.  Concerns were also raised regarding the proposed rear smoking area which would impact on residents in Kingshill Avenue and Adelphi Crescent – it was further believed that the rear entrance would encourage antisocial behaviour. Gates had been installed by shop owners to the rear to discourage antisocial behaviour which had been a problem in the past - if left open later at night, it was feared the undesirables would return. It was also noted that other businesses in the vicinity closed at 11:00/11.30 with the exception of the Brookshouse Pub which employed SIA security staff. 

Members were reminded that they could only consider the application before them irrespective of any newly suggested amendments to it.

The Committee observed that, whilst sympathising with the challenges faced by the proprietor post-pandemic, the proposal was not appropriate for the location. It was noted that shisha lounges were difficult to police in terms of noise and odour; in this case the proposal would inevitably cause a disturbance to residents both above and behind the application site. Furthermore, Members had concerns regarding the proposed rear entrance.

Members noted that the first reason for refusal mentioned noise, disturbance and odour in addition to refuse and recycling arrangements. At the request of the Committee, it was agreed that refuse and recycling arrangements would form the basis of a separate reason for refusal for the purposes of clarity.

Members did not feel the proposal was appropriate. The officer’s recommendation was therefore moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend reason for refusal 1 as agreed by the Committee; and

2.    That the application be refused.