Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 29 May, 2013
Planning application 51651 – to convert the old Nat West in Gatley into another Indian takeaway – comes to Cheadle Area Committee next Tuesday (4th June 2013). I wrote about this back in March when the application was first submitted, and there’s been considerable discussion on the Gatley facebook group. This is an update.
What the application is for
Mr J Ahmed of 20 Wolverton Drive, Wilmslow is applying for permission to convert the former Nat West Bank at 195 Gatley Road, Gatley into an Indian takeaway. If permission is granted, it would allow any hot food takeaway to operate from that building.
Why I am against it
We have too many takeaways in Gatley already, in my opinion. There is a balance to be struck, of course. If the takeaways are doing business and employing people, especially if they would otherwise just be empty shops, then there is a good case in their favour. No-one is suggesting we should have none at all, as lots of people clearly choose to use them. But as we get more and more, it makes it difficult to sustain a thriving daytime economy in the village. Too many of the units become closed and shuttered during the day.
Why is it going to Area Committee?
After I wrote about this back in March, I asked people to register their objections. I’m very grateful to the 87 people who have objected – it shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Because I’ve already publicly come out against it, I won’t be personally involved in deciding this application but my colleagues will be.
At Area Committee, one person can speak for the application and one against, with each being asked questions. Anyone can come along (please do! It’s at Bolshaw Primary School, Cross Road, Heald Green, 6pm on Tuesday 4th June 2013). However, only the one person from each side can normally speak.
The Councillors who take the decision will have to make it based on whether they think it complies with national and local planning policy, not on whether they personally think it’s a good idea. That’s why having solid planning grounds to reject an application is so important.
Can it be refused?
That is the big question. Under planning law going back 60 years, a Council can’t refuse an application just because they don’t like it, or because residents don’t like it. An application must be approved unless there are good reasons in planning policy to refuse it.
The last time a takeaway application came up in Gatley the Council did refuse it – because it involved turning a shop into a takeaway and we have planning rules to restrict that. Unfortunately, the applicant appealed and the Planning Inspector decided that other issues outweighed that. The application was granted, against the wishes of the Council and the councillors (it’s the takeaway next to the Co-op).
In this case, the takeaway is not replacing a shop, but a bank, so that objection doesn’t apply here. As far as I can see, there are a couple of planning objections that could carry weight.
First is parking. People have a habit of pulling up right in front of a takeaway, and in this case that would be dangerous as it would mean people stopping right on the corner of Gatley Road/Church Road. Of course, there is parking nearby so a judgement would need to be made as to whether people will use that, or whether they would park dangerously.
Second is odour and smell. This is normally a consideration of planning conditions, at least in a shopping centre. The applicant needs to show that they will be installing suitable equipment to deal with that.
There are a number of reasons which – whilst perfectly sensible reasons against a takeaway – are not ones the Council can legally rely on to refuse it. You can’t reject a planning application because you don’t think the business will be viable – that’s their lookout. You can’t reject it because it would compete with other local businesses. As there are no proposals in the application to change the outside of the building, the Conservation Officer’s only concern is that the location and colour of the extraction flue be appropriate (he says they are).
Planning officers, who rejected the last takeaway application, think that there are no grounds to refuse this one and so it must be granted. The councillors at the meeting will have to use their best judgement to decide whether they think that’s the case or not.
How can we stop more takeaways?
After the last application, Cllr Pam King and I did a lot of work to look at how we could strengthen our planning rules and come up with something that would allow the Council to reject takeaway applications and not have them overturned by an Inspector.
We came up with a rule on the percentage of frontages in any one shopping area that could be takeaways. For Gatley, we asked that the percentage be set below the current amount. That would mean any new application could be rejected simply on the grounds that we would have too many takeaways if it were approved.
Frustratingly, new planning rules take an age to come into effect, with numerous legal hoops to jump through. The rules Pam and I came up with over a year ago still haven’t come into force, which is why we are looking at car parking and not just saying “there are too many takeaway”.
I am working at the Council to get the new rules into force as soon as we can because I want us to be able to have confidence in refusing further applications.
29 Comments
Thanks for your stance on this. I hope something can be done – the planning law seems daft if the council and the residents are powerless to prevent Gatley’s descent into a food court without a shopping mall.
Difficult call for the Area Committee, I reckon.
Takeaways seem to be thriving businesses in Gatley. I can’t think of one that has closed. Whereas other types of retail outlet have closed. Seems we can support a dozen or so takeaways, but couldnt support a dedicated greengrocers, for example.
Having lived in Gatley for 44 years, I always did and do, shop in the village. But it is increasingly difficult as more shops close. I do so hope that the planners will not grant permission. I think the parking will be horrendous as people try to get their food and park their cars in any old place. I have even seen cars park in the bus stop area!
Did I hear recently on the radio that the Government are proposing that planning permission for change of use, i.e. from retail or business to food outlet will be relaxed? their idea being that they don’t want empty shops so anything will do.
If so that is another nail in our coffin.
Hi Paula,
There are changes, but that isn’t one of them.
For shops, the changes are mostly around making it easier to move between retail, office and residential – so, for example, to make it easier to convert a shop or office into housing.
Remember the farce involving the supermarket to replace the Tatton? LibDems were against it to a man with Mark Hunter saying it would affect local businesses. So what happens – we have a pot-holed road in front of an eyesore whilst a few yards down the road in Gatley Green we have another supermarket – Tesco. The silence from the LibDems was deafening when this was opening.(I know they didn’t need planning permission but it made a mockery of the LibDem’s stance.)
I say let them come – otherwise what other business would open there? One more will make no difference and at least the premises would not be empty.
A premises trading is better than it being empty.
Well said, Bruce.
If you are referring to theparking in front of the cinema – that is not public and belongs to the cinema owners an will possibly be lost on the development of the cinema site?
Totally agree with bruce , it’s one thing to say ” don’t want another takeaway ” , well tell us what you want and make it easier for the businesses who decide to operate in Gatley.
Who exactly is “us” Sajeel?
Planning should take I to consideration similar businesses and Gatley has quite enough Indian restaurants and takeaways, what’s needed is variety not more of the same.
Better fewer retail premises !
Alan. How can you know that Gatley has ‘quite enough’ Indian restaurants and takeaways? You are displaying your ignorance of Indian cuisine. ‘what’s needed is variety’you say. Have you checked the size of that country and tried to estimate how many different regional cuisines may be available? Maybe the council should ask for a sample menu to assist their decision. I don’t live in Gatley but, if I did, I would be celebrating the applicants desire to trade there and be welcoming him.
Alan – what other business would open there?
I am afraid that ‘variety’ has devolved into what we see today – the day of the small local retail unit is diminishing at a rapid pace. Cheadle has a slightly different profile though – not that many takeaways but three Supermarkets, 9/10 charity shops, umpteen estate agents; numerous cafes and banks and a few restaurants.
if you had to associate Cheadle with one type of business it would be the Third Sector (charity) whereas Gatley would be takeaways
I do feel the parking element might be a problem. The junction roadway markings were altered to allow better sight lines, if I recall correctly?
Having said that, there is a Chinese takeaway at the other end of that particular row of shops – if there’s been no problem relating to them, then the only “parking” reason must be purely to do with the actual point of it being right by the crossing and the corner.
Actually Les I’m quite clued up on Indian cuisine to know that most of the stuff served these days is just a tired old tomato based sauce with a bit of extra chilli if you want a vindaloo. That notwithstanding choice should still be on offer. Perhaps the council ought to offer business tax breaks to encourage inward investment
one should ask the question when other shops are closing how do all these takeaways survive? When i walk through the village in the evening they don’t appear to be busy but still presumably still have to pay rates etc doesn’t seem logical to me
[…] Why I’m opposing another takeaway opening in Gatley by Cllr Iain Roberts on Keith Holloway, Iain Roberts & Pam King. Iain may have submitted his […]
It’s good to see that Iain is taking the initiative of looking at the broader issue of planning regulations after the last appeal was granted. However, the demise of our local shops also needs to be considered against how competitive they are against the ‘big’ players who have been granted planning by the council for Cheadle Royal, Portwood, Handforth Dean etc. etc. I’m not sure how much the council discussed the net impact of these huge stores opening on the existing local shops but I for one wouldn’t like to risk opening a retail business in Gatley these days (and fair play to those that do). If we don’t want takeaways then just simply rejecting the application is not good enough. The council need to do more to support local business and allow them to have at least a fighting chance against the bigger stores who hold a massive competitive advantage against them (pricing, parking, marketing, logistics etc). Either that or just allow change of use to residential properties and everyone can drive up to Cheadle Royal.
Hi Duncan,
Good points. Back when places like Cheadle Royal were granted planning permission, councils couldn’t stop them just because they might damage local centres.
That’s actually changed to some extent. We now have sequential development rules, which say that we can refuse permission for an out-of-town store if there’s a place for an equivalent store in-town.
We used that most recently to reject an ASDA outside Marple, where there’s space for a similar store to be built in Marple centre.
We do work with local businesses – Gatley has free parking, of course, and we’re reducing one-hour parking in Cheadle to 20p/hour as well as looking to create more one-hour-free bays where we have residents parking.
Gatley has a thriving artisan sector with kate barrow vintage candles and illuminarte and armeniqe for great deli productsas well asbossco and the invitation store for great design and creative solutions
Oh Dear, Alan, your now displaying your lack of a discerning palate. That isn’t far short of a calumny towards Indian sub-continental cuisine. Of course, you must be a regular patron to be able to make such a statement.
I agree with Phil how do all these takeaways exist they often seem empty and still have costs to meet it really makes me wonder about them.I would like to see a more Didsbury/Chorlontesque feel to the village its good to see 2 coffee shops. The pavement improvements are good and the village still has character.
Bruce, Les and Sajeel are the voices of reason.
Phil and Others – You may not see customers queueing, but i think these days most of us have our orders delivered.
To suggest that patrons will park on the zebra crossing is surely far-fetched ?
Can’t recall seeing any problem with cars parking outside the two take-aways that are in that row of premises.
[…] already set out the issues around the application here. I’d like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion on Facebook and here, who […]
To the voices of reason amongst you, 85 objectors have perfectly valid opinions, hence Iain taking up the fight, however unfortunately it appears that the law is presently against those opinions.
I for one don’t wish to live in a village full of take away litter and for my children to grow up thinking that everyone eats fast food 7 days a week.
It only takes a short walk to see how these things are already a problem.
Whilst I accept that an empty unit is not necessarily a better option, it is up to the council and the business owners to address the additional issues that exist when considering applications such as this. Surely whether written in law or not, “investors” must recognise the responsibilities that they have to the communities that they seek to capitalise upon.
It seems like nothing more than common decency to expect that a business owner would wish to build bridges with his customer base by showing willing to organise, fund and participate in clean up schemes, sponsor street furniture, local events and otherwise enhance what the area has to offer.
Is it wrong as a resident to expect that council and entrepreneur should make efforts to address these things without the need to legislate for every possibly imaginable circumstance?
P.S. I agree with Alan, largely the standard of curry in Gatley is average. I am very sorry to have missed the consultation.
Is that it for this matter now Iain?
this will be the 6th indian takeaway! do we really want a mini curry mile in Gatley?
With the application being approved, the owners of the building (whom I spoke to on Tuesday) are looking for possible tenants. Nearly all the interest they’ve had has been from takeaways, so it’s very likely to be a takeaway but may not be an Indian.
A separate planning application will probably be needed for a sign for the new takeaway, and we’ll wait and see when that comes through.
Every application has to be decided on its own merits so you couldn’t, for example, refuse a sign because you don’t want the business the sign would be for.
Very strange, this is just what I was thinking the other day, a population of about 10,000 needs another takeaway. We have over 20 if you don’t just include the village, 1 takeaway for every 500 people! I doubt even Rusholme can claim a better ratio. Can we please change our name from Gatley Village to Gatley Takeaway Mile?