The Committee considered an application (18/02431/FUL) for retrospective planning permission for the installation of an extraction flue with external outlet grill to front elevation.

The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Councillors Fry, Upton, Taylor and Pressel because of concerns that the ventilation system at the application property did not accord with DEFRA advice and that the A3 use of the property has not previously included deep fat frying or cooking large quantities of meat.

The Planning Officer presented the report. He explained that the extraction equipment was installed at the request of Environmental Health Officers as the optimum solution for the restaurant.

With regard to the concerns raised as to nuisance from sound and particularly smell, he explained that these would not constitute reasonable grounds for refusal. The Environmental Health Officers of Oxford City Council had conducted their own investigations and in their professional opinion the issues raised by local residents did not substantiate a statutory nuisance.

Marianne Moxon, local resident, spoke against the application. 

The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application.

The Committee noted the following points:

·       that the DEFRA guidance referred to in the “call-in” and by the public speaker had been withdrawn in 2017.  The Oxford City Council Environmental Health Officers had referred to the latest guidance (Institute of Air Quality Management’s (IAQM) Guidance On The Assessment Of Odour For Planning, published in July 2018) when advising on the suitability of the extraction equipment.

·       that the professional advice of the Oxford City Council Environmental Health Officers was that there was no statutory nuisance in terms of noise and odours

·       that the appearance and setting of the external outlet grill would cause only a minimal degree of harm to the adjacent listed buildings and Conservation Area which would itself be offset by the public benefit of the continued A3 use of the building.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it. They acknowledged the concerns expressed by the public speaker and in the written objections.  However, the Committee was mindful that these were matters that would need to be addressed by other regulatory powers.  The decision before the Committee related only to the suitability of the extractor system in terms of its visual impact.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.     Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and grant planning permission.

2.     delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

a.     finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.