A LONG-running battle to turn toilets into a takeaway restaurant has been dismissed by Government planning inspectors.

Proposals to convert disused former public toilets on Colne Road, next to Brierfield Town Hall, into a takeaway restaurant were first mooted in 2016 but Pendle planners refused permission.

Amended plans were resubmitted this year but, after council bosses again turned down the bid on parking grounds, developer Rahul Patel lodged an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Mr Patel said it was inevitable there would be a lack of parking close to the site because of its town centre location.

But he argued Tunstill Square public car park nearby would provide adequate parking for customers.

Mr Patel had also made an application for costs to be awarded against the council citing unreasonable behaviour which has caused unnecessary expense and left him out of pocket.

But the Planning Inspectorate has found in favour of the council’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Borough planning officer Christian Barton said: “The application seeks to change the use of a public toilet to a hot food takeaway with external alterations. The development would have no unacceptable effects on the residential amenity of the immediate neighbours. It would also be appropriate in terms of the design and impacts on heritage assets.

“However, the site has no off-street parking, or land to provide parking. The development would lead to unacceptable conflict with road users, would contribute to illegal on-street parking and would fail to ensure a safe and suitable access is provided for all site users."

Government inspector Robert Hitchcock said: “Because of the concerns highlighted, I do not consider the local options would provide suitable provision for servicing.

“Moving wholesale bulk produce to the site either across the main road or along the stepped footways from the car park is unlikely to offer a practical or safe option.

“Consequently, given the extent of local controls legitimate service parking is likely to be at an impractical distance.

“The propensity, therefore, would be to risk informal parking in close proximity to the site.

“This would likely not be possible without transgressing the local highway restrictions or prejudice to highway user safety.

“The same would be applicable to any vehicular use associated with prepared meal delivery services.

“Notwithstanding the town centre location or the potential to enforce against unlawful parking, for the above reasons, I do not consider there is sufficient justification to reduce the parking requirement for the site to a zero provision.

“The local restrictions are such that convenient parking and servicing would be extremely difficult to achieve to the extent that indiscriminate parking is highly likely.

“I therefore conclude, in the absence of suitable parking provision, the development has a high potential to compromise highway safety and interrupt the free flow of traffic on a local strategic route.”