S/153/01123/23: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Mr. G. Dastgeer

Location:                           112 Lumley Road, Skegness, PE25 3NA

Recommendation:              Approval with Conditions

Officer:                              Megan Larder

Application Type:       Full Planning Permission       

Proposal:                    Planning Permission - Change of use, conversion of and alterations to the existing retail premises to provide a mixed use comprising a café (Class E), hot food takeaway (sui generis) and a shisha bar (sui-generis) including associated external seating area and installation of an extraction system and flue.    

Location:                    112 LUMLEY ROAD, SKEGNESS, PE25 3NA

Applicant:                   Mr. G. Dastgeer

Members received an application for full Planning Permission - Change of use, conversion of and alterations to the existing retail premises to provide a mixed use comprising a café (Class E), hot food takeaway (sui generis) and a shisha bar (sui-generis) including associated external seating area and installation of an extraction system and flue at 112 Lumley Road, Skegness, PE25 3NA.

The application was presented for determination by the Planning Committee as the proposal would constitute a departure from the Skegness Neighbourhood Development Plan (a part of the development plan for the district) and the recommendation was for conditional approval.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Principle of the development
• Impact on amenity
• Impact on character of the area
• Highway impacts
• Flood risk

Ms Michelle Walker, Deputy Development Manager, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 27 to 28 of the report refer.

There were no speakers on the application.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

• A Member raised a concern with regards to the shisha smoking bar area and queried whether the Committee would be able to approve permission for the café, without the smoking area.

The Deputy Development Manager explained that the application to be considered was for all elements of the proposal, not just the café, however there was an option to defer the application in order to negotiate with the applicant.

Following which, the application was proposed for approval.

• A Member provided clarity on shisha and pointed out that it was not the same as tobacco smoking.

• A Member commented that there was a social club next door where people would be stood outside smoking and did not consider this would be any different to the shisha area proposed. 

• A Member raised a concern with regards to public health and considered that marketing a tobacco product to the general public was a wider concern.

Following which, the application was proposed and seconded for a deferral, for further negotiation to take place.

A Member requested some clarity with regards to the Environmental Health

Manager’s comments, following which  the Deputy Development Manager

confirmed that shisha smoking must remain outside.

Following which, the application was seconded for approval.

At this point in the Meeting, the Legal Advisor advised Members that they would need to provide a valid reason if they wanted to defer the application.

• A Member highlighted that it was an individual’s decision on whether they wished to smoke.

• Several concerns were raised relating to the impact on the local area, the effect on family areas and of promoting smoking on the street.   

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation, Members voted as follows:

Vote:          4 in favour           6 against             2 abstentions

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for deferral on the grounds of the impacts on street scene and the proximity to the ice cream parlour next door to the proposed site, Members voted as follows:

Vote:                   6 in favour           3 against             3 abstentions

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred.