Tomfoolery plans for alfresco seating area


Planning permission for a temporary outdoor seating area is being sought for a restaurant which is currently under construction in the village centre.

Tomfoolery at 34 has applied for a seating area to be placed on the Council owned pavement outside 34 London Road.

The proposal includes temporary cafe barriers to delineate the area and using simple stackable chairs and tables to allow for alternative layouts. The plan is for the seating and barriers to be cleared when not in use.

The Parish Council discussed this application at their meeting on Monday, 8th June.

Councillor Craig Browne commented "There is obviously a precedent for this kind of development on London Road already, at nearby premises. The two concerns I have are first of all proximity to the kerb, the planter and also the lack of space between the proposed seating area and the ramp down to Brown Street. If someone was trying to pass that area in a wheelchair or a mobility scooter, or even a pushchair, I think personally it's a bit too close to the kerb.

"Secondly, the proposal is for seating for an additional 16 people yet there are no accompanying plans for parking."

Councillor Mike Taylorson added "The concern is that the pavement does not have the width to support it."

The councillors decided to request that the application is referred to the Northern Planning Committee for determination.

The planning application can be viewed on the Cheshire East Council website by searching for planning reference 15/2276M. The deadline for submitting comments is 23rd June.

Planning Applications, Tomfoolery 34


Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Jon Williams
Wednesday 10th June 2015 at 7:09 am
It's got to be a NO, no room for pedestrians !
Alan R Davies
Wednesday 10th June 2015 at 8:27 am
There should be no consideration of this application until the applicants have completed the construction work which has blighted the village for so long.
James MacDonald
Wednesday 10th June 2015 at 9:08 am
Agree with both. Especially no because it will be even narrower when drivers illegally park on the pavement.
Stephen Justice
Wednesday 10th June 2015 at 12:26 pm
If the seating area is redefined both front and side to leave adequate space for passers by - including those with prams or using wheelchairs and mobility scooters - surely the only remaining issue is simply to relocate the planter to a place where it is not blocking the remaining footpath?

The restaurant proprietors could be reasonably required to provide attractively stocked removable planters as boundaries to the seating area which would enhance the appearance of London Road.

This would be a good way to appease those who perhaps quite reasonably feel aggrieved by the unsightly hoardings which have remained in place for so many months.

However on balance - leaving the building to rot in the manner of the long empty site at the corner of Stevens Street would surely have been equally offensive?

Regarding parking - this seating area and potential occupants are not the issue. It is a legacy of the previous County and Parish councils that there is inadequate parking immediately adjacent to London Road and further afield for valuable shoppers, diners and staff in the retail and office premises.

I'm disappointed that our newly elected representatives who I had great hopes would bring both pragmatism and innovation into our council, are quoted here in the negative fashion I recognise from the old guard, rather than adopting a constructive style of suggesting compromises so that a solution can be reached to help a new business succeed.
Mike Dudley-Jones
Thursday 11th June 2015 at 8:48 am

I have passed your comments to Craig Browne with a copy of your post as I think the points you make are relevant and should be attached to our referred document. I also agree with you!
Craig Browne
Thursday 11th June 2015 at 12:17 pm

Firstly, thank you for your comments. The application for outdoor seating is a separate amendment to the original application for the redevelopment of the site, which has in any case already been approved and will be unaffected by this.

An application "call-in" has to be based on planning concerns, which is why the attributed comments read negatively. Reasonable discussion and negotiation will (I hope) take place in the committee meeting which follows, as a result of the application having been called in.
Duncan Herald
Tuesday 16th June 2015 at 7:36 pm
Hi Stephen,

May I remind that the 'old guard' had a plan to relieve parking problems i.e. a car park for 125 or more cars, on Heyes Lane. You may not have liked the plan, but it was a plan.

Doubtless the 'new guard' will shortly produce an innovative plan of their own to similarly 'take out' cars from the village centre.
Peter Watson
Wednesday 17th June 2015 at 6:33 pm
Is it only me who gets a bit tired of the 'old guard' constantly commenting on this site in a negative way? They had their innings, batted as well as they could, got bowled out and now just simply need to go to the pavilion and off the field of play.