There has been a fair amount of interest in the two planning applications for this premises. The first alert was back in February 2019 when the former Melrose Diner externally lit plain wood effort was supplanted by a more bedazzling number to explain the replacement food concept at 481.
Residents raised this matter, particularly the conservation area planning compliance of the fascia but then on inspection the planning use class activity appeared changed from A3 (restaurant) to A5 (hot food take away). As previously explained here, the planning acts do allow an operator or owner the opportunity to right the misdemeanour of not running with the correct permission by making a formal application within 28 days of notice being served. Two separate applications were then lodged on 1 April 2019; an item was published here on 14 April 2019 explaining how people may comment if they wished.
As is normal with the planning process, the applications were allocated to a Hounslow Council planning officer whose role is to assess applications against the law, current local, London and national policy as well as emerging draft planning policies.
The outcome of the fascia change application was an officer delegated (did not go to Planning Committee) refusal on 25 May 2019 and the report on that decision can be found here.
There was a similar fate for the change of use class, refused on 7 June 2019 warranting a more complex analysis and interesting response, considering more recent revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. Read the planning officer’s report here.
Whilst permission has been refused for both applications, under the Planning Acts, the applicant does have a right for up to three months to appeal the council’s decision(s) to HM Government’s Planning Inspectorate.
The council also has scope to make early moves to enforce the refusal but even then, the applicant can still exercise their right to appeal to the Inspectorate but by taking this approach, Hounslow Council can reduce any delays. Hounslow Council’s Head of Planning Enforcement has been written to with a request that this line be pursued.
Readers should also bear in mind that the consideration of appeals made to the Planning Inspectorate are not immediate, they can take time to commence as well as to report and all during this period, the applicant can and is likely to choose to continue to trade.
If and when an appeal date is announced, these details will be shared.
Be assured that this process will continue to be monitored by Osterley and Spring Grove Ward Councillors together with neighbours and the St Johns Residents Association as it has been thus far.