South Ribble takeaway plan rejected in area where there are '10 others nearby and nowhere to park'

South Ribble Borough Council’s planning committee rejected a bid to convert a vacant former bridal shop, at the junction of Watkin Lane and Hoghton Street, into a hot food outlet.

The venture was proposed for premises next to an existing fish and chip shop – and in an area which members were told boasts a total of 10 similar eateries in the space of just half a mile.

Nevertheless, the business would still have been permitted by local planning policy – had it not been for what the authority concluded was the impact it was likely to have on neighbouring residents.

Lancashire County Council highways officials did not offer any road safety objections, noting that the location was part of the Tardy Gate district centre and already accommodated other takeaways like the one next door. However, South Ribble’s planners recommended that councillors refuse the application on the basis of the problems it would cause for locals.

Planning manager Catherine Thomas told the committee that parking was prohibited on the main road, Watkin Lane, with Hoghton Street being a dead end at the junction and without a turning circle.

“Any vehicle calling [at the takeaway] – whether that‘s customers or delivery vehicles – would have difficulties in terms of manoeuvring and parking in this area.

“For that reason…we feel that there are issues in terms of the impact this development might have [as a result of] vehicular movements late at night [and] comings and goings in this very restricted area,” said Ms. Thomas, who also cited the risk of “noise and disturbance”.

Nine objections were lodged to the proposal – with parking issues chief amongst them – while there was one letter of support.

Cllr Karen Walton, who represents the neighbouring Farington West ward, told the committee that the Tardy Gate centre “from Coote Lane to Victoria Street already provides 10 hot food takeaways including a cafe and a bakery”.

“So does the area really need another?” she asked.

Committee member Haydn Williams said that the proposed takeaway – whose opening hours would have been 4.30pm until 11pm – was “a completely different prospect” to a 9-5 retail operation.

He added that there were clearly highway safety issues, in spite of the lack of an objection from the county council, because of there being a pedestrian crossing right outside the premises – meaning any illegal parking could pose a particular risk.

The appearance of an extraction flue that would have been installed at the rear of the property was also called into question by planners and councillors. The meeting heard that the adjoining fish and chip already had two such flue systems, which Catherine Thomas said “don’t benefit from planning permission at the current time”.

The committee’s rejection of the takeaway proposal came just over a decade after a similar plan for the same address was also blocked.