Be careful. The condition sounds unreasonable but it depends on the precise reasons why the Committee wants to impose it.
Their parking and servicing concerns seem weak as does their worry about impact on adjacent properties and the area in general BUT - the way how the retail use is separated internally from the attached residential use at no.77 might give legitimate reason for concern. Imagine if you lived over/next door to a shop which was rented out to someone you don't know with rights to walk through part of your house?
Once permission is granted the Council can't control who uses the shop and who occupies the residential part of the property - unless they impose a condition like this. However, it doesn't sound like they have this worry from what you say and if the internal and access arrangements have been worked out properly in your design then there should be no need for the condition on this ground either.
andyplan
Their parking and servicing concerns seem weak as does their worry about impact on adjacent properties and the area in general BUT - the way how the retail use is separated internally from the attached residential use at no.77 might give legitimate reason for concern. Imagine if you lived over/next door to a shop which was rented out to someone you don't know with rights to walk through part of your house?
Once permission is granted the Council can't control who uses the shop and who occupies the residential part of the property - unless they impose a condition like this. However, it doesn't sound like they have this worry from what you say and if the internal and access arrangements have been worked out properly in your design then there should be no need for the condition on this ground either.
andyplan