Change of Use A1 to A5

A successful businessman from Cheshire rang Planning Appeals Limited as he was keen to expand his business and create a new hot food takeaway in Chester.   He had tried and failed to gain planning on a prospective new property.

Case History

Before contacting PAL the client had identified a property as being an ideal location for his new takeaway business. The property had an existing A1 retail planning permission and a Happy Shopper franchise was in situ.

In order for a hot food takeaway to take up occupation and operate at the property a change of use application was necessary and the client’s previous agent had applied to Chester City Council for planning consent to change from A1 to A5 hot food takeaway.  

This application was rejected by Chester City Council who claimed that, “allowing the change of use would undermine the viability of the suburban shopping centre, that there are appropriate alternative facilities in the area and that if allowed the proposed use would cause detriment to the amenities of the surrounding area by way of increased noise, litter and odours contrary to policies RET10 and GE3 of the Chester District Local Plan”.

The agent then submitted an appeal but the client became concerned that his agent, although a superb architect, would not have all the legal knowledge to ensure the appeal would be robust in its entirety.

At this point, in December 2008, Planning Appeals Limited was asked for their advice, an instruction followed and the planning team swung into action.  The planning statement was researched and planning policies investigated. PAL refuted many of the Council’s claims on a legal basis and on January 28th submitted a comprehensive appeal.

On 26th May 2009 PAL’s appeal was allowed and planning consent was granted. The Inspector stated…”I can see no policy justification whatsoever for the argument in the Council’s statement that links the viability of the centre with “appropriate alternative facilities” that already exist in the area. This completely refuted one of the Council’s reasons for refusal and supported PAL’s opinion.

Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/A/09/2096426