Plans for a 3rd takeaway unit in a small row of models on a residential Perth road have been permitted after councillors had been instructed their causes for refusal weren't competent.
Perth and Kinross Council 's Planning and Placemaking Committee met on June 1 to contemplate plans submitted by Fouin and Bell Architects on behalf of applicant Asif Hussein.
Planning consent was sought to alter a vacant retail unit - at 96 Glengarry Street within the Moncreiffe space of Perth - right into a takeaway unit.
It sits amidst a terraced row of floor flooring models which presently home two takeaways, a magnificence salon and a comfort retailer. The models above are privately occupied flats.
The plans attracted 13 objections which included issues concerning the lack of want for one more takeaway, parking, noise, scent and anti-social behaviour. An current concern with noise and litter was described by a number of residents as a "shame".
One resident wrote: "It was only some weeks in the past somebody broken a automobile throughout the highway while reversing out because of the tightly parked vehicles on the street. Subsequent time it might be a bicycle owner or a baby."
One other objector wrote: "We have already got two takeaways there and one at Edinburgh Street and several other at Craigie Cross lower than a mile away."
Cllr Eric Drysdale instructed the committee at Wednesday's assembly: "I am involved as a result of I am aware of the realm and lots of's the time after I've been there there's not solely been no parking areas however individuals have double parked if simply popping for a takeaway."
The Perth Metropolis Centre SNP councillor was involved it "would possibly lead to even better parking issues" for the resident with a disabled bay straight outdoors the unit.
Planning officers stated parking enforcement was handled by the police or parking attendants - not planning.
One other officer acknowledged the "advert hoc" parking and steered "probably elevating it with the site visitors community staff to see if there may very well be any enhancements".
He added: "There are bus stops so there are alternatives for individuals to journey by bus to the shop [unit] or stroll or cycle."
Shifting for refusal Conservative councillor Bob Brawn stated: "Now we have an obligation to guard residential amenity. I am involved we have already got two takeaways and have already got parking issues.
"With all due respect, most individuals will take a automobile to get a takeaway. I am unable to see somebody taking a bus to get a takeaway."
His movement was seconded by Conservative councillor Ian James who added issues about noise.
He stated: "It is a residential space and can solely compound what's already there."
However the council's authorized adviser Colin Elliott stated councillors had been "not assessing over-provision" and "parking's not a planning downside however an enforcement concern".
He stated a planning situation had been added to mitigate noise points.
Consequently not one of the causes that they had given had been deemed "competent" causes for refusal.
Cllr Brawn stated his refusal was primarily based on the "the cumulative impact on residential amenity of one other takeaway within the space" and stated it conflicted with PKC 's planning coverage that stated a growth ought to "contribute positively to the standard of the encompassing constructed and pure setting".
He stated: "For my part, it is going to make it worse."
Mr Elliott stated: "It's important to say what the hurt is and primarily what you are doing there may be placing in an over-provision coverage and saying you'll be able to solely have a certain quantity as a result of this one will trigger an excessive amount of extra."
Cllr Brawn "reluctantly" withdrew his movement and Cllr James "reluctantly unseconded".
Cllr Drysdale added: "If I perceive you appropriately Mr Elliott parking - regardless of the very fact it is talked about within the report - it isn't a difficulty we must always concern ourselves with on this committee? And but I do recollect different circumstances the place parking was completely a difficulty and deemed competent. If there's a disabled particular person parking there that struggles to park as it's and we'll make the scenario worse, is that not residential amenity?"
Mr Elliott stated parking had been assessed as "already sufficient".
Transport planning officers concluded there was "sufficient parking outdoors the proposed unit" and "thought-about that the extent of site visitors generated by the proposed use won't unacceptably influence on the native transport community".
Convener SNP councillor Ian Massie moved to approve the change of use and SNP councillor Mike Williamson seconded.
Planning consent was given.