No takeaway 'hell' as plan is turned down (From Warrington Guardian)

No takeaway 'hell' as plan is turned down

RECORD numbers of residents turned out in force to await a decision that would affect them 'until the day they die' as planning committee members prepared to vote on an application for a takeaway in Fearnhead.

There was standing room only as homeowners crammed into the committee room at the Town Hall to implore members not to seal their fate and increase noise, traffic and anti-social behaviour on Orchard Street.

Boosted by support from their MP, Helen Jones, Poulton with Fearnhead Parish Council and ward councillors, the residents, determined to make their presence felt, listened as nominated councillors fought their corner.

Clr Albert Clemow, speaking on behalf of all three ward councillors, in opposition to the application said: "It astounds me that there are so many contradictions in this application. There were five previous applications submitted, four of which were for takeaways and all were rejected on highway issues, so why then does it say that planning history is not relevant?

"This takeaway is going to be a kebab shop aimed at the lower end of the market and is looking to attract people from out of the area. It is also ludicrous to say that there isn't a parking problem. You are making a decision that could make these people's lives hell until the day they die. This service just isn't suitable in that area."

Parish Councillor David Eccles also spoke to oppose the application, saying: "These residents have suffered in silence having a number of shops in a residential area facing residential dwellings in very close proximity. These residents have been patient for many years and the situation would be made worse if the application was approved."

Applicant Safdar Ali told the committee that part of his family was living in the area and that his children were in local schools. He said: "I want to be a part of this community and this would provide a very good service."

Committee member Les Hoyle moved to refuse the application and said: "It is quite clear that this site is unsuitable and would make life difficult for residents."

Committee members voted unanimously to refuse the application on the grounds of residential amenity and increased traffic.