X hits on this document





136 / 141

pollution control legislation. This is also included in the planning documentation as an advisory note.

    • 3.3

      One letter of representation has been received from an adjacent shop unit, FADS at 9 Stewarton Street. The grounds of concern are summarised as follows:

      • a)

        The location plan seems to encompass their premises,

      • b)

        How will access be gained to the site? The current access is locked and is so due to a history of loiteringlantil-socialbehaviour,

      • c)

        Are there any external alterations proposed that would require scaffolding - subsequent impact on their business?

    • 4.1

      This application requires to be assessed against the development plan and any other material considerations.

    • 4.2

      The application site is zoned as a town centre area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (modified 2001 & 2004) and policy RTL 5 applies. In this area there is a presumption in favour of retail applications as well as support for other non-retailtown centre uses such as offices and professional services. There is also support for leisure uses where such proposals do not adversely affect the character and amenity of the town centre. In this instance, the proposal is for a fitness studio which is categorised under Class 11 ‘Assembly and Leisure’ of the relevant use classes legislation. To this end the principle of the development and type of use proposed is acceptable from a policy perspective and attention is therefore given to its impact on the town centre environment.

    • 4.3

      I consider that the site characteristics are such that the proposed fitness studio can be adequately integrated into the town centre location within which its sits, with no unreasonable detriment to the surrounding uses. The property does not have a street frontage and is not directly linked with any other property other than William Hill Bookmakers below, from whom the premises are to be sub-let. With no physical change to the fabric of the building (other than replacement windows, which will result in an overall improvement) any visual impact as a result of the introduction of the use will be limited. From an environmental control perspective, my Pollution Control Team Leader has no objections and does not consider the proposals likely to give rise to noise complaints. Furthermore, having assessed the parking and access implications of the development my Traffic and Transportation Team Leader also has no objections to the proposals. Having regard to these issues I therefore consider that the proposal complies with planning policies TR13 (transportation assessment) and RTLI1 (bad neighbour developments).

    • 4.4

      One letter of representation has been received and Iwould comment on the various points as follows:

  • a)

    Revised plans have now been submitted detailing the correct building. The initial drawings were found to be incorrect.

  • b)

    The applicant has advised that access to the premises is indeed to be taken from this locked gated access. The point regarding loitering is noted however this matter is one to be reconciled by the relevant parties and landowners and not one that can be controlled through planning legislation. While I appreciate the concern, I do not consider potential loitering and anti/social behaviour sufficient to merit refusal of the application in planning terms. I would note that the applicant has confirmed that the gate will be open only while the studio is in use and locked at all other times. The applicant has also confirmed their intention to install CCTV.

  • c)

    The applicant has confirmed that no external alterations are proposed other than

Document info
Document views247
Page views247
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 19:02:55 UTC 2016