Retrospective bid to extend Greek restaurant rejected by planners

A retrospective application to extend the popular Santorini Greek restaurant in Stockton Heath, Warrington, has been rejected by town planners.

The extension, which has already been completed and in use, was required to increase the business viability according to the applicants.

A Design and Access and Heritage Statement was submitted by WhiteleyEaves on behalf of Metodi Metodiev in support of the retrospective permission for the erection of canopy, decking and fence with fence gate to the rear yard of cafe for additional covers.
The “proposed development” falls within the Stockton Heath London/ Grappenhall Road Conservation Area 1988.

The application was seeking retrospective permission for the erection of a single-storey infill canopy, boundary fencing and decking to the rear yard of the property.
The proposal allows for an additional 24 covers to the café, increasing the business viability, sustaining its positive impact and already well received contribution to the high street.
The proposal incorporates adequate space to store refuse and mixed recyclable waste and will have no effect on the primary frontage of the existing building.

But Warrington Borough Council planners say the extensions and fencing at the application site by virtue of their construction, materials and appearance do not relate well to the host building and appear as ad-hoc and incongruous additions which detract from the defined character of the Conservation Area. The harm identified is less than substantial and there are no public benefits which would outweigh the harm.
The development therefore conflicts with Policy DC2 of the Local Plan and would neither preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.
In refusing the application they went on to say the extensions and fencing at the application site by virtue of their construction, materials and appearance do not relate well to the host building and appear as ad-hoc and incongruous additions which detract from the general visual amenity of the area.
The development therefore conflicts with Policy DC6 of the Local Plan.