Appeal 6005073

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to form a new hatch in existing restaurant shop front at [site address] , [site address] , [name] 3, Broadgate, Coventry [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0002298/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Location Plan & Plans & [name] AL1.

The main issue is the effect of the development on pedestrian safety, with particular regard to the use of e-bikes and e-scooters in the public square.

The appeal relates to an existing restaurant within Coventry City Centre with a frontage onto Broadgate which is a public square with a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) prohibiting the riding, cycling, or using of e-bikes or e-scooters, amongst other matters. The PSPO does not prevent people from pushing e-bikes and e-scooters across the square, neither does it prohibit food delivery operators from accessing premises off the square.

The proposal is for the insertion of a serving hatch to provide for food delivery operators to collect orders. There is no disagreement between the main parties that the development would be sympathetic in its design and would not adversely affect any of the surrounding businesses.

The proposed hatch would provide benefits to the business in terms of removing delivery operators from the internal space and free up this area for customers wishing to dine in the restaurant. This would provide economic benefits to the existing business and the City Centre. The plans indicate space for delivery operators to wait outside the premises and off the square which would ensure that there is not unacceptable adverse effects on the pedestrian movements within the square and no social or environmental harm. Furthermore, the proposal indicates two areas of landscaping either side of the hatch which would improve the appearance of the appeal proposal.

The PSPO is not part of the planning legislation and is separate and enforceable in its own right. There are clear signs around the square advising of the PSPO and I also saw bike stands outside the square which would provide space for such vehicles to be left. [name] accept that the Council and the [name] are concerned that the appeal proposal would increase the risk of food delivery operators riding across the square, I have no compelling evidence that this would be the case and, even if they did, this would not be a matter for planning to enforce.

Moreover, I do not have any compelling evidence that the installation of the hatch would significantly increase the number of delivery operators and, as they are already accessing the front of the premises through the main entrance door to the restaurant, there would not be any noticeable change to the number of these types of movements. Overall, even though the appeal site lies within a PSPO, for the above reasons, I find that the installation of a hatch would not adversely affect pedestrian safety, with particular regard to the use of e-bikes and e-scooters in the public square.

I have determined the appeal before me as a hatch to the front elevation and found that there would not be unacceptable adverse effects and, therefore, no harm to health or to the walking routes across the square. I, therefore, have not needed to comment on whether there is an alternative delivery hatch option.

For the above reasons, I find that the development would comply with Policies DS3 and AC4 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan, 2017, which, taken together, seek to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area, increase health, wellbeing and quality of life, and ensure that development incorporates safe and convenient access to walking and cycling routes.

The Council has indicated the conditions that it suggests would be appropriate and I have considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions specifying the time limit and approved plans are both necessary as this provides certainty. No other conditions are required for this proposal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.