Property owners have lost an appeal against Cheshire East Council's decision to refuse planning permission for the change of use of the unit at the corner of London Road and Stevens Street, from retail to restaurant.
Mrs Glen Berd of Perlada Properties Ltd appealed against the refusal to grant planning permission for change of use to create a restaurant with new shop front and rear extension at 51/51A London Road and 7 Stevens Street.
Planning permission had previously been granted in June 2011 for the change of use of part of the ground floor from office to retail with the erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions for retail and office purposes (reference 11/1196M).
The change of use application (reference 12/0137M) was then submitted last year to enable PizzaExpress to open a restaurant at the site in the centre of the village.
Perlada Properties appealed on the grounds that the change of use would bring a vacant property back into commercial use, improving the vitality and viability of Alderley Edge village centre, and would not compromise the amenities of occupants of the neighbouring buildings.
Revised plans were submitted to address concerns over possible odour/pest matter and late night disturbance for local residents caused by the disposal of glass bottles.
These include an indoor refuse storage facility, where rubbish will be stored overnight and transferred into the external bins during the day, and the relocation of the external refuse storage to the alley way between the site and the adjacent shop.
The appellant also stated that the proposal would not cause a significant increase in noise pollution to neighbouring residents because the level of noise associated with clients entering and leaving the premises at night would be reasonable and deliveries to and collections from the premises could be controlled by conditions.
However, the Planning Inspectorate said that the revised plans relating to the repositioning of refuse containers and the provision of an internal night refuse store, which were submitted during the appeal, could not be taken into account because local residents had not been consulted on them.
Henry Johnstone, owner of the jewellers next door, wrote in support of the application.
He said "It is my understanding that PizzaExpress has expressed an interest in occupying this property. Whilst I feel there is a definite need to ensure a good balance or mix of use of property in Alderley Edge & the need to protect retail interests, I firmly believe that PizzaExpress are a great 'family' based business which should result in an increase in daytime footfall rather than just in the evening.
"The property has now been empty for approximately three years and become a bit of an eyesore. The redevelopment of this site would be welcome and we would fully support such a decision."
The Planning Inspectorate recognised that the proposal would create jobs and would enhance the local environment by refurbishing the unit and bringing it back into use. However, he dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the harm caused to the quality of life of local residents and its negative impact on the vitality and viability of Alderley Edge shopping area would outweigh these benefits.
A second planning application (reference 12/4459M) for a change of use of the premises at 51 London Road and 7 Stevens Street from retail to restaurant was also refused in January 2013.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Pizza Express doesn't attract a noisy, late-night crowd!
How could it have a negative impact on the vitality or Alderley Edge shopping area?
And how can it be preferable to have a long-term empty, virtually derelict unit?
The Inspector had to deal with what was before him, which was an application for A3 use which is the restaurant/pub/club use.
Once Planning Permission is given for a building, the conditions of Approval are fairly meaningless because Licencing will set the opening hours, including performing music, and they will supersede the Planning conditions.
It seems so much easier to convince them to allow people to build more apartments as long as they throw some money at them towards "affordable housing".
Licensing conditions must refer to planning restrictions.
Take Aldeli as a recent case,. they applied for a TENS to open until the early hours. This was refused at licensing committee as it blatantly contravened the planning hours and would cause a nuisance. Planning permission 12/1693M requires them to limit opening hours to 23:00 which is clearly not the same as applying for a 2am TENS with live music etc. This was knocked back, quite rightly so on the basis that planning hours and licensing hours has been restricted to the same.
If any subsequent applicant wish to apply for later opening under planning this can be looked at separately as is usual.
I agree with you about the landlords' need to moderate rents chargeable; it is just impossible for every shop to be an A3, otherwise they will all suffer.
However Charity Shops do get rates relief, so that makes life a bit easier for them.
Whilst it is true that a lease had not been signed with Pizza Express at the time of the appeal, I would ask: "How could it have been?" Pizza Express would never sign a lease until they were sure that they would be able to occupy the premises, i.e. not until planning permission had been granted for an A3 use. However, to imply that mentioning Pizza Express was a mere ruse and that the premises would be occupied by another outlet are simply incorrect. Pizza Express had an option to sign the lease, once planning permission was granted and this was something that they were very keen to exercise. In fact, the technical specifications of the ventilation and extraction equipment had been drawn up according to Pizza Express's own requirements.
It is true that if Pizza Express had ceased to occupy the premises in the future, another restaurant could normally occupy the premises without planning permission. However, that is the case with all restaurants. To imply that all references to Pizza Express were a cynical smokescreen by greedy developers is not true and something I find offensive to my professional integrity.
Went past PE in Wilmslow today and can only think it would be a benefit to AE. It has to be better than an empty shop. It's hardly anything to get upset about.
The planning application being considered at appeal was for a change of use to A3 for any restaurant, bar etc.
However, the reason for the title and mention of PizzaExpress in the article is because I received confirmation in writing and on the phone that this planning application (reference 12/0137M) for a change of use was submitted on behalf of PizzaExpress to enable them to open a restaurant at this site.
Mario West, the reason why Aldeli was treated differently by Licencing is that the Planning Permission was for "heating" prepared food. It was not, in Planning Terms, a proper restaurant. It was normal for Licencing to restrict alcohol to the hours of serving "heated" food. My point is valid, that once an A3 permission is given, the driving force will be Licencing. Any Councillor will tell you that when the A3 Planning use is given, then there is no local input in Licencing. Cheshire East don't even consult Parish Councils about Licencing applications now. Why? It would breach the Human Rights of the Applicant if Parish Councils were consulted.
Paul Dowd : I said that Pizza Express had not signed any deal, and had not even signed a "subject to" deal - ie subject to planning permission being granted. You now say they had an option; but the Inspector was left in no doubt, and it was pursued at Appeal, that had the Appeal succeeded, then the Bubble Room could have opened up in these premises. The ventilation of restaurants near residential properties is always a topic of concern; I did not hear you say in the Appeal that the ventilation was planned to be significantly superior to anything required by Environmental Health, simply because this ventilation was to meet a Pizza Express standard. The ventilation was simply standard ventilation.
Lisa Reeves : I don't know who you phoned, or who told you it was Pizza Express. However, I do know that the name Pizza Express was used in the Appeal, and there were constant references by the Agent to Pizza Express.
In the Appeal, we had to keep bringing the Inspector back to the fact that the Applicant was Perlada, and that there was no binding contract to lease the property to PE. Therefore the Appeal had to be treated as if the Bubble Room, or any other operator could open in a new A3 on that site. The refusal was not specific to one brand, it was a refusal of any food use, which actually upheld a previous refusal by an Inspector to allow any food use of that site.
Only a cynic would suggest that when a previous Inspector had refused any food use on that site, a new application trailed as an application on behalf of a cuddly name might tempt a new Inspector to allow food use now.
There was a gentler time when we had much less all day parking around the residential streets; gradually workers cars are pushing further and further out. When you learn that an A3 unit of a decent size can bring another 60 to 80 workers on shift systems, you have to think there is a correlation between the existing A3 and the parking problems.