WE WRITE following the article in the paper of the 27 April (’Restaurant bids to end pollution breach’) regarding the high grease extraction flue on a restaurant in Bridge Street.

We support the current planning application; however, we must take issue with the public comment made by Deputy Leader of Test Valley Borough Council, and planning portfolio holder Cllr Nick Adams-King.

In March 2015, the lessees of this property submitted a planning application (15/00500/FULLN) for the change of use of the betting shop to fish and chip restaurant and installation of ventilation equipment.

The above planning application was approved, subject to conditions.

In respect of the flue, the environmental health officer (EHO) stipulated that: “Works that form part of this scheme shall be installed as approved and shall be in full working order prior to the commencement of the use.”

The planner agreed that the permission would not be made lawful until this condition was complied with.

Unfortunately, the premises opened without this condition being discharged with the resultant smoke and odour bellowing across Bridge Street.

Therefore, a second application (16/00329/FULLN) was submitted to the local authority for the replacement of the kitchen extract system. This was a retrospective application as the works had already been carried out, but no steps were taken by the planning enforcement manager or principal EHO to enforce the condition or control the pollution.

While the EHO took no action, he did raise an objection to the application.

Therefore, this second application was refused by the planner, but still the council stood by, while acrid blue cooking smells pervaded the flats above, along and around Bridge Street.

Fast forward to this April, more than two years after the original application and opening night, and we still have the same status quo.

Ironically, the council wasted no time awarding its ‘Independent Retailer Grant’ (£1,000) with Cllr John Cockaday taking the limelight.

With all due respect to this independent family business; what is hard to stomach is the Cllr Adams-King coming out with a statement that “it was not appropriate to take enforcement action”. It is difficult to think of a more demanding case for intervention by the heads of planning and environmental health!

Yet again we find ourselves having to point out blatant inconsistencies and failures in Test Valley’s enforcement of serious breaches of planning control which has had serious environmental health consequences for the town.

If Test Valley’s chiefs are not willing to discharge their statutory functions and enforce their own conditions, then why should anyone else take any notice of planning and environmental health laws?

A lack of will by officers to do their duty has left Cllr Adams-King with egg on his face.

Paul Flippance, Inter County Surveys, Suffolk Road, Andover.