Friday 27 September 2013
Expiry - If the contents and any quotes contained in this media release are to be used after 2 October 2013 journalists are requested to check the current situation with the Environment Department first as circumstances or events may have changed.
The Department wishes to clarify the reasons for its recent refusal of the planning application relating to the King Fisher Chip Shop. A copy of the planning decision notice and planning application report can be found at the bottom of this page. The reason for refusal of this application was because:-
"The use as currently operated, without satisfactory extract ventilation equipment, gives rise to an unacceptable and detrimental impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighbouring properties in terms of emissions and noise and the proposals submitted for extract ventilation equipment to remedy these matters would be unacceptable in terms of visual amenity; the proposals are therefore contrary to Policy RGEN11 of the adopted Rural Area Plan which seeks to protect neighbouring amenity."
With regard to Policy RGEN11 and impact on neighbours, in relation to emissions and noise, the Environmental Health Department was consulted on the application and advised that relevant guidance demonstrates that fish and chip shops have a very high odour concentration and grease content from emissions. They further advised that such a concentrated cooking odour must be dispersed at sufficient height and/or passed through a filtration system and failure to do so is likely to have a detrimental impact on the local environment and result in complaints of nuisance.
The representations received from neighbours highlighted the odour and grease from emissions as a cause of concern. The Environmental Health Department advised that to achieve the necessary odour control will require a significant upgrade of the existing system and the noise generated by any new ventilation system will also need to be assessed.
The application was deferred to seek details from the applicant of how he intends to achieve the necessary odour control. Drawings showing the provision of external extract ventilation equipment were submitted which showed the ducting occupying a large part of the rear elevation of the building. This would be unsightly particularly when viewed from the neighbouring property. The applicant was then requested to site some of the equipment within the building so that only the flue, which could be clad or painted, would be visible but no response was received to this request.
The application was consequently refused for the reason set out above.
ENDS
