Appeal 6001308

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission Ref P24/V0170/FUL, issued in 2024, granted planning permission for a change of use from a beauty clinic to a takeaway at the appeal site. A hot food takeaway is now trading on site. The appellant seeks to extend the opening hours from those originally imposed, to between 11AM and 11PM every day of the week, meaning that the takeaway would be open for an additional hour in the evening.

The main issue is the effect that these proposed opening hours would have on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The site comprises a ground floor unit in use as a takeaway in Southmoor. It is part of a short run of other units in commercial use, with flats above. A small parking area is present in front of the site. To the south and east, residential properties are present in close proximity to the site.

[name] 5 of planning permission Ref P24/V0170/FUL provides that the preparation/sale of food for consumption on or off the premises shall not take place before 11AM nor after 10PM on any day. In terms of the 10PM closing time, this is in line with the baseline level of activity in the local area, with the onestop in the same row of commercial units and the nearby [name] both ceasing trading at 10PM. This is in the context of the local area being primarily residential in nature.

Although the appellant has said that no issues with the police or fire brigade service have occurred so far, the proposal would likely generate activity in terms of comings and goings, vehicle movements, and conversational noise from customers and staff, at a time when local residents can reasonably expect peace and quiet. As the level of activity would depend on the amount of customers who would attend the site on any given evening after 10PM, the noise generated would likely be irregular and unpredictable, thereby having an invasive effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

It is clear, then, that the proposal would likely result in adverse impacts to the living conditions of neighbouring residents by way of increased noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. The fact that some local residents have raised concerns relating to existing noise and anti-social behaviour caused by customers of the takeaway reinforces my findings. Hence, condition No 5 in its present form is both reasonable and necessary.

The Wagon & Horses and The White Hart at Fyfield are public houses, which are a different type of establishment than a takeaway. Few details have been provided to show that the level of activity generated at those premises would be comparable to the proposal. I observed that, unlike the site, Southmoor kebab van is not located in a residential area. As it has not been demonstrated that these examples are directly comparable to the proposal and the site, they do not change my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed opening hours would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would conflict with part iii. of Development Policy 23 of the Local Plan 2031: Part 2 – [name] and [name] (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses when considering both individual and cumulative impacts in relation to noise, and with Development Policy 25 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development will not be permitted if mitigation for noise-generating development cannot be provided within an appropriate design or standard.

I have had regard to the documents submitted containing numerous signatures from customers who support the proposal. This indicates that the takeaway is providing a good quality service which is valued by many in the local community. Nevertheless, the popularity of the business is not in dispute. It does not alter the fact that, for the reasons given on the main issue above, extending the opening hours as proposed would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Consequently, this matter has been given little weight in support of the proposal, and it does not outweigh the harm identified.

Few details have been provided to explain how the success of the proposed trial period would be measured. Nor has any length of time for such a trial been proposed. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that a planning condition relating to this matter would meet the requirement in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that conditions must be precise.

Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.