Fish Restaurant - Harrods?

[Howard]

Agreed. I'm assuming that Jamie has sunk significant amounts of capital into this refurbishment of the shop. It's a shame the full implications of opening a fish restaurant weren't examined before aquring the property.

[ringi]

Personly I think this building would be far better used as a home, due its location and lack of wheelchair access.   We have enough empty or underused shops (there is no need for more than one charity shop) on Market St that would be a much better location for a Fish Restaurant.

[Cyberman]

I don't think we want the planning department to reconsider that would imply they should accept that the applicants lack of waste provision and the problems for adjoining properties are accepted. Surely what we want is for the applicant to address the issues raised in the planners report so that approval may then be given.

part
You're right - I hadn't read down past the "economic, social and environmental conditions" bit of the post. I hadn't realised it shared a wall with a residential property. Also, when it was Harrods, there were often boxes and car bits piled up by the front door awaiting disposal. If this was fish waste, it wouldn't be pleasant. I hope the applicant is able to address the issues.

[wheels]

I hope the planning dept. reconsider.

I don't think we want the planning department to reconsider that would imply they should accept that the applicants lack of waste provision and the problems for adjoining properties are accepted. Surely what we want is for the applicant to address the issues raised in the planners report so that approval may then be given.

[Cyberman]

I'm sorry the restaurant may not get the go-ahead - I was looking forward to it opening! I think it would "improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area" - considering its neighbours are a bookies, a scruffy corner shop, a car wash and a car repair garage. A takeaway or another alcohol-based establishment would not be good, but I don't see a problem with a decent restaurant. I hope the planning dept. reconsider.

[Steve Gribbon]

Good afternoon site colleagues

I have been in contact with Jamie this week, Malcolm Allan and I are visiting the site and the proprietors next week, I’m hoping Colin MacAlister will be coming too.

We will of course be attending as impartial Councillors but will do what we can to help resolve the situation.

Kind regards

Steve

[corium]

The decision also states:

"...The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable
development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. .."

Not so sure about some of these e.g. the economic argument but others sound potentially terminal. Not that I'm an expert.

[andrewbowden]

I hear what you're saying, but that's not what Larissa and Jamie are saying

It's true that I didn't read every comment on Facebook, but they didn't seem to mention the noise issue on there.

I don't know why that wasn't mentioned
 But certainly what is on their Facebook page is only half the story.  We can all see what Stockport council have published.  And there is definitely a gap between the two.

[wheels]

Nonetheless the issues identified are important and need to be addressed so let them be dealt with and all move on.

[wheels]

I hear what you're saying, but that's not what Larissa and Jamie are saying

Well I find that amazing and barely credible.

[nbt]

I hear what you're saying, but that's not what Larissa and Jamie are saying

Constant communication was made between us & Stockport council within the 8 weeks & not once was we informed of possible barriers that we would need to overcome in order for planning to be granted

[wheels]

I think the main issue is NOT that the council have said "we're not happy with that, what else can you do" - but that they have ONLY done so at the end of the process, rather than during the eight week period, which might have allowed Jamie to work with them to resolve the issues first time. The council's points are doubtless valid - but they fact that they just rejected the application rather than working with the applicant is rather disappointing

What you discribed never happens the Council always keep the an applicant informed and indeed usually suggest an application is withdrawn so it isn't declined so that issues can be addressed. This application would certainly not win any appeal unless the issues Andrew has highlighted are addressed and the applicant will have known this for several weeks.

[nbt]

I think the main issue is NOT that the council have said "we're not happy with that, what else can you do" - but that they have ONLY done so at the end of the process, rather than during the eight week period, which might have allowed Jamie to work with them to resolve the issues first time. The council's points are doubtless valid - but they fact that they just rejected the application rather than working with the applicant is rather disappointing

[andrewbowden]

I had a look into this and I see only half the story being told.

This is the decision notice from the council.
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData-live/files/0FCE2CC076F0F4731516D8B69F259C1D/pdf/DC_070557-REFUSED_-_COU_P_RANGE-925394.pdf

1 The premises shares a party wall with an adjoining residential property (No.1 Chapel Fields) and in the absence of a noise assessment and/or appropriate noise attenuation/insulation measures, activity associated with the restaurant, particularly at night would result in obtrusive noise and disturbance to the detriment to the amenities and quality of life that the occupiers of No.1 Chapel Fields.  Accordingly, the proposal is    contrary to the requirements of policies CS5 'ACCESS TO SERVICES', SIE-1 'Quality Places' and SIE-3 'Protecting, Safeguarding and enhancing the Environment' of the adopted Stockport Core Strategy DPD.

2 The applicant has failed to make adequate provision for refuse storage facilities in accordance with the requirements of Saved Policy MW1.5 'Control of Waste from Development' of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review.

It seems to be that 1) is a much more serious issue than 2).  If you lived at No.1 Chapel Fields, would  you be happy with a restaurant opening up next door to you that hadn't taken into account your needs?

I also found the report on the matter.
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData-live/files/7ED720215FD05FF2CACA1E9802207906/pdf/DC_070557-DELEGATED_REPORT-925059.pdf

Which states that the concern over waste handling is an environmental health issue.


I am sure this is incredibly frustrating for the business owner.  But equally planning rules exist for good reasons.  A little extra work may be needed.  But all the council are doing here is saying "This isn't right.  Think again."

[andrewbowden]

Some of these licenses and permissions can't be applied for in advance, as the relevant authority needs to see what you've actually put in place, rather than what you say you will put in place (probably, maybe, if you get round to it....).

But an 8 week delay in being reassessed (assuming the issues raised can be resolved significantly sooner) seems excessive and obstructive.

Eight weeks is a pretty standard time as documented here.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/58/the_decision-making_process/5

There is a process that has to be followed.  And the process has to be consistent and fair to everyone who follows it.

And frankly, starting a petition about a planning process issue is rather ridiculous and seems to me to be more about creating sympathy than doing anything useful.