Controversial Hartlepool takeaway loses appeal after operating without permission

Hartlepool Borough Council planning committee last year unanimously rejected plans to convert a shop in Raby Road in Hartlepool into a hot food takeaway, raising issues such as obesity concerns.

The application, from Mr Pathmathan Kandasamythurai, was retrospective as the change of use had already commenced.

An appeal was later lodged to the Government Planning Inspectorate by the applicant against the decision to refuse the development planning permission in a bid to get the ruling overturned.

However an inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, has now completed a report on the appeal and ruled it is to be dismissed, supporting councillors in their decision to refuse the plans.

The report said the proposal was unacceptable in terms of the effect it would have on the character and appearance of the area, and supported concerns over the number of takeaways.

It said: “Being in a largely residential area and not in a designated retail centre, the appeal proposal does not therefore comply with the requirements of the development plan.

“I consider that it is entirely consistent with national and local policy to seek to control the number of A5 uses (hot food takeaways) in order to support healthy lifestyles.

“As such, I conclude that the proposal could be detrimental to the health of local residents.

“It does therefore conflict with policies… of the local plan, which amongst other things, seeks to control the location of hot food takeaways and ensure that development is of an appropriate form, respects its surroundings, is aesthetically pleasing and well designed.”

The plans were originally refused by councillors over fears it would be detrimental to the health of residents to have another takeaway in the area, combined with the fact the site is not a designated retail centre.

Objections had also been raised to the flue system, for waste smoke and gasses generated, claiming it was of a ‘poor quality design’.

Concerns had also been raised by councillors when rejecting the plans as to why the site had been operating ‘well over a year’ without planning permission, leading to the retrospective application.

Council planning team leader Daniel James had said the proposals were received by the planning team in March last year and during the application process concerns were raised regarding its operation, with the issue being passed to licensing and public protection teams.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

In order for us to continue to provide high quality and trusted local news on this free-to-read site, I am asking you to also please purchase a copy of our newspaper.

Our journalists are highly trained and our content is independently regulated by IPSO to some of the most rigorous standards in the world. But being your eyes and ears comes at a price. So we need your support more than ever to buy our newspapers during this crisis.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our local valued advertisers - and consequently the advertising that we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you helping us to provide you with news and information by buying a copy of our newspaper.

Thank you