`

New Wigan restaurant plan rejected

Siam House takeaway in Standish
Siam House takeaway in Standish

A bid to convert a Wigan takeaway into a Thai restaurant has been rejected over concerns about its ‘unbearable’ impact on neighbours.

Planning committee members unanimously agreed with town hall officers that the proposal was ‘incompatible’ with residential properties on Church Street in Standish.

Related: Wigan takeaway owner addresses fears over restaurant plan
Related: Residents oppose Wigan restaurant plans

The owners of the Siam House takeaway said the conversion of an adjacent terrace property would allow them to expand and open an eatery capable of serving 52 people.

But concerns had been voiced – including objections from ward representatives Couns Adam Marsh and George Fairhurst – over the restaurant’s impact on parking and its adverse effect on neighbouring residents.

Peter Sedgwick, who addressed the committee in opposition to the plans, urged councillors to consider the occupants of the property next door.

He said: “Can you imagine how it would be to have 52 people the other side of your living room or bedroom wall, especially a child’s bedroom wall, six nights a week with the bar directly beneath their bedroom window?

Peter Sedgwick and other Standish residents opposed the plans

Peter Sedgwick and other Standish residents opposed the plans

“This is already an overburdened and congested area. With a 52 seat restaurant life would be unbearable for the residents,” he added.

Officers said the town hall had received 33 representations objecting to the development and 41 in favour, including petitions for each side.

The bid included a change of use application for 67 Church Street – from residential to restaurant – in addition to a two storey rear extension.

It would then be combined with property 65 – the existing takeaway – to create an ‘intimate, high-class establishment.’

Applicant Edward Jennings said Church Street was ‘not a 100 per cent residential area’ and Standish’s local economy needed to ‘grow’ to reflect the amount of housebuilding in the area and suggested the design of the proposed extension could be amended together with noise restrictions to lessen impact on the neighbouring property.

However, committee members agreed with officers that the development would cause an ‘unacceptable loss of amenity’ to nearby properties and highlighted the business would add to existing parking issues in the area.

Coun Stephen Murphy said: “I don’t want to be in a position where we are refusing someone who is trying to move forward, to build that business.

“But on this occasion I think the proposal has taken the whole question too far and hasn’t given consideration to the impact it is going to have in that area and in particular on the properties adjacent.”