Planning & Environment

There’s no clear threshold for when a use stops being ancillary, with the potential for planning permission to be required.

I blogged back in August about an enforcement notice that was upheld against Nardinis of Largs on Byres Road. The reporter in that case focused on the floor space given over to table service to conclude that the sit-in offering could not be considered ancillary to the ice cream parlour’s Class 3 use.

There’s a similar issue for restaurants – when does a hot food takeaway use stop being ancillary?

In a recent enforcement case (ENA-180-2015) a reporter has again put significant weight on the floorspace allocated to restaurant use. In the absence of any contradictory evidence (the reporter indicated that a log of customers using the dine-in and takeaway facilities would have been useful), it was determined that the notice claiming a dominant takeaway use should be quashed as the dining space comprised around half of the shop area.

It seems, then, that less is more in terms of floorspace when attempting to argue ancillary rather than mixed use. Certainly in these cases factors such as customer numbers, turnover and profit levels have been given limited consideration by comparison.

Victoria Lane

Senior Solicitor at Brodies LLP
Victoria is a senior solicitor in the Planning team. She has worked on a broad spectrum of transactions, gaining experience of working for landowners, developers, local authorities and other public sector bodies. Victoria has worked on a variety of projects, including the acquisition of a shopping centre, a quarry planning permission appeal, a wind met mast appeal, and proposals for planning restrictions on pay day lenders.
Victoria Lane