Planning round-up: Indian restaurant looks to up its take-out offer

Below are some of the most significant planning applications of the past week. See all plans by entering the reference numbers in the RBWM's online planning portal.

Pending: An Indian restaurant is looking to officially turn from a restaurant into a takeaway/restaurant so it can up its take-out sales without attracting questions about the use of the site.

The application by Sariz Ltd seeks a change of use of the ground floor of the Emperor of India to a mixed restaurant and takeaway.

The unit on Windsor Road has operated predominantly as a restaurant, with ancillary takeaway, or the past 22 years.

The Emperor has operated from the building since 2002.

Before Covid, sales were split at 70 per cent eat in and 30 per cent takeaway. Since Covid, the sales split has shifted, now standing at 60 per cent eat in and 40 per cent takeaway.  Demand for takeaway ‘continue[s] to grow.’

As such, the restaurant is looking for ‘a higher level of flexibility’ including a higher percentage of takeaway ‘without drawing into question the use of the site.’

The restaurant currently opens from 5-10pm Monday to Sunday, and Sunday lunch at 12-2:30pm

In recent times there has been an increase in breakfast trade demand.

It is therefore proposed to have extended morning operating hours to 6am – though that would require a separate licencing application.

The proposal does not seek any physical work on the building.

24/01171/FULL

Refused: A plan for self-build and custom housing plots in Holyport - which won an appeal against RBWM - has hit another stumbling block.

Windsor and Maidenhead council contests that the plans could really count as custom/self-build, given that the proposals 'appear to lack individual input,' which is an integral part of this housing style.

Community Build, a non-profit which promotes community-built housing, is the agent for applications to put in four self-build and custom housing plots (SBCH) in Sturt Green.

Alongside the applicants, it put in a reserved matters application in December, which accompanies an outline application (22/0789/OUT) which won on appeal.

Outline applications handle some initial parts of an overall plan, while reserved matters deal with other parts later on.

This means a plan with multiple elements can be split over more than one planning application, and RBWM can approve parts of it but not others, depending on the issues.

The ‘reserved matters’ here relate to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, with the outline part having already been resolved - albeit via an appeal against RBWM's refusal.

In contrast to RBWM, the planning inspector considered the harm to the greenbelt outweighed by the positives, ie, provision of SBCB.

For this fresh application, Community Build told RBWM it represents four individuals that are on the council’s self-build register, who had ‘primary input on the design’ and collaborated to produce a unified scheme.

But, said RBWM: “No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the four individuals are on the council’s self-build register.

“Nor has any evidence been provided that the design has been produced collaboratively," wrote officers.

Moreover, the design's similarity to another application for the same site, refused in 2018 and dismissed on appeal, makes it ‘more apparent’ to RBWM that there has been no collaborative design.

The landscaping proposals 'also appear to lack individual input,' wrote officers.

Because RBWM doesn't think these plans fall within custom/self-build, their concerns about greenbelt apply again - and are not, they believe, overruled by the inspector's take on the matter, which was based around the need for SBCH plots in RBWM.

“The application does not provide sufficient information to satisfy the [council] that the application meets the definition of Self and Custom Building housing," officers wrote.

23/03045/REM and 23/03041/REM

Refused: Maidenhead Development Management panel refused a plan for three homes in Cookham last week, in line with officer recommendations.

Briar Glen is an unadopted residential road accessed from High Road. Applicant Germain Homes wanted to put in two houses, with parking and landscaping.

The site currently has two houses on it, both of which would have been demolished to make room for the new three.

These, Briar Cottage and Holmwood, are bungalows constructed of asbestos and ‘are no longer fit for habitation and cannot be insulated’ because of this, the applicants said.

But there were 14 letters were received objecting to the plans, with neighbours citing concerns over the loss of the site’s green character, occupiers, among many other concerns.

Meanwhile, council officers felt the site access and proposed layout had ‘insufficient width’ which would adversely impact the accessibility by not allowing for emergency vehicle to enter, manoeuvre and exit the site.

There was also an absence of necessary reports, pertaining to ecology, sustainability, and flooding, officers said.

The committee did opt to refuse the application, given the officers’ comments.

23/03209/FULL