Sandwich shop plan debate takes a twist

Proposals went before councillors on January 12 for an eatery in a former charity shop on Laughton Road in Dinnington.

But it had emerged during the planning process that the cafe was only heating up food rather than cooking it on-site.

This means it is not classed as a hot food takeaway and did not need permission to change the use of the building, only for alterations to the windows.

Chris Wilkins, RMBC senior development officer, said: “When the application originally came in, it was advertised as a change of use from retail to a mix of shop, cafe and takeaway.

“But looking at what they were actually proposing, it became clear that they weren’t actually going to operate as a hot food takeaway.

“It was going to be a sandwich shop with a cafe element and that all falls in the same use class.”

Dinnington Town Council still objected, with chairman Cllr Dave Smith saying: “We’ve got sandwich shops and takeaways coming out of our earholes.

“We think that we’ve got too many of these in Dinnington.

“It’s ridiculous that we should be having another one.”

Mr Wilkins responded: “Every property in that street could be a sandwich shop or cafe because the government changed the rules.

“Cafes, shops, restaurants all fall within the same class, so you can go from one to the other without needing permission.”

Cllr Smith also used his objection speech to criticise developers who build or open before planning permission is in place.

He said: “This has been up and running since well before Christmas. To me, there’s a contempt for this planning board by the owners.”

Mr Wilkins said: “I would like it if the government said you have to pay double the fee if you have already started the work because then it might prevent them doing this.

“But they are not doing anything illegal until we get to the point where we say it’s not acceptable.

“We do serve notices on people when they are doing things without permission.”

Planning board chairman Cllr Alan Atkin said he sympathised with the town council’s point about retrospective applications.

“We hate them,” he added. “There is always that feeling that they are trying to take the Michael out of us.

“But unfortunately, the way the legislation is written, our hands are tied.”

Last year there were 59 retrospective applications submitted after RMBC learned of work carried out without permission.

This brought in about £20,000 in fees, which helps sustain the service and keeps enforcement officers employed to intervene when required.

About 90 per cent of retrospective applications are passed anyway — but action in other cases can include requiring extensions be demolished, for example.

Cllr Atkin said: “I always think one of the perks of being chair of planning should be that I should be allowed to drive the JCB to knock the person’s extension down... but officers won’t let me for some reason.”