Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for change of use of the existing ground floor E(a) use retail shop to E(b)/Sui Generis (hot food takeaway) Lebanese lunch restaurant and takeaway.

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The application site related to a vacant commercial unit in Guildford town centre which was formerly last used as a retail use.  It was also located with the Town Centre Conservation Area, Primary Shopping Area and Secondary Shopping Frontage.  The site was located towards the top of the High Street beyond the cobbled area, situated on the ground floor of a 6-storey building with residential flats above.  The main changes proposed would involve the installation of the ventilation and extraction equipment.  The only visible change to the building comprised the addition of an extraction flue which would be visible from the roof.  The proposed change of use would result in a row of two adjacent non-retail uses, the additional use would also exceed one third of the street frontage and resulted in the loss of a retail unit which would add to the existing unacceptable erosion of retail uses in the area.  The amended Use Class Order had been taken into account as this was published after the adoption of the Local Plan.  Even though the changes in the Use Class Order were to stimulate town centre uses, the government specifically excluded takeaway uses and classified them as a separate use class. 

The Chairman permitted Ward Councillor John Redpath to speak for three minutes.

The Committee considered concerns raised that this building had been used as a takeaway for the last four years and only recently closed.  When the planning classification changed in July 2020 it was still operating as a hot food takeaway.  Therefore, it could be argued that the establishment should have automatically moved to the current Sui Generis classification that now covered Hot Food Takeaway establishments rather than A1.  The concern was that by refusing this application the Committee was barring businesses from operating that would exacerbate the number of units that remained empty in the town. 

The Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that for a change of use to become lawful a 10-year period of occupation was normally required not a 4-year period.  However, if the applicant wanted to pursue that line, it was recommended they withdrew this application and applied for a Certificate of Lawful Use.  Nevertheless, the Committee had to consider the application before it and whether or not planning permission should be granted. 

The Committee remained concerned about the number of empty units in the High Street which had been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and whether an exception should be made in this case to permit the change of use.  The Committee also noted that the recovery from the pandemic was still at an early stage and it was possible the shop would be used in the future as a retail unit.  Disregarding policies in this case had to therefore be carefully balanced against the fact that this application was not exceptional. 

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 21/P/00378 for the reasons as outlined in the report.