AM Planning Consultants: example of an objection letter

23 October, 2005

Mr D Islip,=

Planning Depart= ment,

The Royal Borou= gh of Windsor & Maidenhead,

York Stream Hou= se,

St Ives Road,

Maidenhead.

SL6 1QS

Dear Mr Islip,

Re : Application 05/01319 – Change of Us= e at 2 Queens Road from A1/B1 use to A5 use

I write on behalf= of local residents at numbers 1,1A,3,5,7,7A and 9 Queens Road= , Sunninghill plus the nearby Jade Fountain Restaurant, in order to object to the ab= ove planning application. It wo= uld appear from the site’s planning history that an A1 unit has been in operation at 2 Queens Ro= ad for twenty years. The propo= sed change of use away from this established retail premises to a takeaway sh= ould be refused on the grounds that it is in direct conflict with relevant planning policy for the reasons set out below.

The application s= ite lies within the Commercial Area of Sunninghill, as defined on the proposals ma= p of the adopted Local Plan. Pol= icy SNH1 of the Local Plan states that :

‘The Borough Council will not permit proposals which would result in a loss of existing retail (class A1) units either through change of use or redevelopment wit= hin the commercial centre of Sunninghill as defined on the Sunninghill Inset Map’

There can be no doubt that the proposed application is in direct conflict with = this policy and it should be refused for this reason.

The supporting text to Policy SNH1 explains that the loss of retail units will harm the character of the village, further erode its viability as a shopp= ing centre and reduce the range of local goods and services. Sunninghill already possesses a significant number of food and drink premises within = the defined commercial area, including takeaways. An additional takeaway is theref= ore not necessary anywhere in the commercial centre, however in this particular location it will not only detract from the provision of retail units but = will also cause significant disturbance to nearby residents.<= /p>

As is apparent fr= om the site plan, the application site lies almost directly opposite the residen= tial property of 1 Queens Roa= d. This is the first of a run of 9 residential properties within 70m of the application site, all but two of which do not possess any off street parking. Whilst such a relationship between residential properties and a retail unit is acceptable, a takeawa= y in such close proximity of so many dwellings on a heavily parked street is m= ost definitely not acceptable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the park= ing provision is considered to be inadequate. The submitted application forms = state that there will be no on site parking provided. As a result cars visiting the pr= emises will be likely to attempt to park directly outside of, or opposite, the takeaway. This is a narrow section of Queens Road adjoining residential properties, most of which do not have off street parking. Additional parking taking place in such an area will be both dangerous and disruptive to loc= al residents, who will not be able to park near to their house. <= /span>

At first glance i= t might seem that all parking concerns are likely to be addressed due to the adjoining public car park. However, in reality, during the day time there are no spaces left = in the car park after 9 am and in the evening it often becomes a meeting and ‘activity’ = area for local youths, meaning people choose not to park there but instead use= Queens Road.

When visiting man= y types of premises people would simply park further away from the premises if th= ere are no safe spaces nearby, however the nature of A5 uses is that people w= ill be willing to park dangerously as long as they are near to the takeaway on the basis that they only intend to be out of the car briefly. This will inevitably cause highway danger to all road users and pedestrians and disturbance to local residents.

In addition to the parking problems likely to be caused by cars visiting the A5 use, there w= ill also be general disturbance caused by the car movements. During the day and early evening= this will add to the already significant levels of traffic. Later into the night it will bec= ome an audible disturbance with engines being started and doors slamming when background disturbance levels are that much lower.

Disturbance will = also be caused due to the general nature of takeaways and the inevitable gatherin= g of youths. Whilst this might be acceptable during the daytime such groups gathering late into the evening will be likely to result in considerable noise disturbance and could also create an intimidating environment for the local residents. In connection with this, if Offi= cers are minded to grant permission for the takeaway, which for reasons set ou= t in this letter is not considered to be the appropriate decision, it is urged that hours of operation are restricted by condition to 10pm on weekdays and 10.30pm at weekends.=

The disturbance c= aused by takeaways is one of the main reasons why they have recently been separated from other food and drink uses and been given their own use class. This is a perfect example of the likely disturbance levels of a takeaway being unacceptable due to the clo= se proximity of residential properties.

Local Plan Policy H15 advises that :

‘The Borough Council will protect and enhance the environm= ent of existing residential areas…’

One of the main components of the Borough’s strategy is set out at para 1.5.4 of the Local Plan, this being :

‘To maintain an environment that is naturally diverse, safe and attractive and which will maintain and improve the quality of life in both urban and rur= al parts of the Borough’

If the current application is allowed the local environment will be notably harmed and the quality of life currently enjoyed by local residents will suffer significantly. The proposal is therefore in further conflict with the above Local Plan Policy and guidance.

At a national policy level, PPS 1 advises at para 40 that :

‘The planning system operates in the public interest to ensure the development= and use of land results in better places for people to live…’

If the current application is allowed, the residents on Queens Road will have to live in a significantly worse place, for the reasons set out above.

To conclude, the current application does not accord with the general princi= ples of good planning. Due to the harm that would be caused to the Sunninghill commercial centre by the loss of the retail unit, plus the significant adverse impact upon the local environment and residential amenity of near= by residents, the proposal is in direct conflict with relevant Local Plan policies, against which the application should be considered. As a result it is respectfully requested that the application be refused.

Yours Sincerely,

Andy Meader BSc(Hons) Dip = TP MRTPI

<= /span>