Agenda item

Proposal:  Changes to approved Planning Permission APP/15/01436 comprising of reduction in window size and relocation of entrance door on front elevation, addition of conservatory, smoking shelter to rear elevation and erection of fence and gates to rear boundary.  (Part retrospective application)

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/y9rbqm9n

The Committee considered the written report, in addition to supplementary information, and the recommendation from the Head of Planning Services to grant permission.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

1)    Ms S Kennedy and Mr M Smith who objected to the proposal for the following reasons

a.    The use of the rear yard for a beer garden was unsympathetic to the immediate neighbouring properties due to the high levels of noise and noise pollution which would continue until midnight.

b.    As this was part retrospective application, the lack of consultation with neighbours had meant that there had been a lack of communication prior to construction. Consultation could have led to a more sympathetic construction.

c.    Neighbouring residents were unable to have a reasonable enjoyment of their properties due to the necessity to keep windows shut at all times because of noise and smoke.

d.    The premature construction had caused a significant detrimental impact on the neighbouring property due to an increase in black mould.

e.    The lack of soundproofing in the existing construction was unacceptable and needed to be rectified.

f.     The principle of the conservatory aspect of the proposal was not being objected to, it was the increase in noise and lack of consideration for the neighbouring properties.

g.    There was concern that the construction had created a fire safety risk.

In response to questions raised by the committee, the deputee advised that:

                                          i.    The objections were not to the principle of the conservatory, objections were over the lack of noise insulation.

                                        ii.    Previously, doors had existed on the outside of the conservatory and they would like to see these reinstalled.

                                       iii.    They were not objecting to the level of smoke; noise was the main issue of concern.

2)    Mr I Murray who supported the application for the following reasons:

h.    The site and business had significant community value within the local area. The proposal sought to increase its use and engagement with the community.

i.      the proposal would regularise the property.

j.      The inclusion of noise mitigating features, such as insulation, was sympathetic to the needs of the neighbouring residents and would decrease levels of disruption due to noise.

k.     There had been no objections from the police and there had been no public order offences served.

l.      No noise nuisance tests had been undertaken and therefore the level of disruption created by noise was subjective.

m.   The proposal to construct gated fences to the rear of the site sought to increase safety for residents.

n.    The proposal would increase the public use of the site and therefore contribute to the local economy and community.

3)    Cllr M Wilson who supported the application for the following reasons:

See appendix A attached to these minutes.

In response to questions raised by the committee, Officers advised that:

·         The proposal outlined that the smoking shelter would no longer be attached to the adjacent building if approved.

·         The applicant had advised that the exterior doors on to the conservatory would be reinstalled

·         The response from environmental health officers regarding the installation of insulation and noise mitigating features was positive, indicating it would help to reduce noise levels.

·         The materials proposed for the insulation were acoustic plasterboard and foam for the conservatory roof.

·         All letters and comments from members of the public that had been received by the Planning Development Team regarding noise and licensing concerns had been forwarded to the relevant teams in the Council. Licensing and Environmental Health issues were not a matter to be considered by the Development Management Committee.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with views raised by the deputees. During the course of debate memebrs raised the following points:

·         Though mandatory installation of doors on the exterior of the conservatory was deemed unenforceable, it was still in the best interest of neighbouring properties that these were installed.

·         The detachment of the smoking area from adjacent properties was positive as it would assist with air flow and air circulation.

·         The regularisation of the site was within the best interests of both the applicant and the neighbouring properties as it would allow for both parties to have reasonable enjoyment of their respective properties

·         The installation of noise mitigating features through insulation would assist in reducing disruption to the local area when the pub was being used by the public.

It was therefore RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant planning permission in retrospect for application APP/17/00025 subject to:

The following conditions:

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Proposed plans A103 received 8 June 2017

Proposed Elev's and views A104 received 8 June 2017.

Agents email of the 6 June in respect to polyurethane foam

Reason: - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development.

3. The attachment to the adjacent property and the noise insulation measures set out on plan A103 received 8 June 2017 and detailed in the Agents email of the 6 June 2017 in respect to acoustic roof insulation and acoustic plasterboard shall be completed in accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/ used by the public until such works have been fully implemented and shall thereafter be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
 

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and having due regard to policy DM10 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework
           

4. The premises shall only be open for trade or business between the hours of 11.00 and 23.20.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and having due regard to policy DM10 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. No external extraction and filtration equipment shall be  erected without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.  Any such approved scheme shall be implemented fully in  accordance with the approved details  and shall remain operational thereafter. 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and/or occupiers of neighbouring property and having due regard to policies CS16 and DM10 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

And the following informative(s):

1)    To reduce disturbance from noise the external doors at the rear of the premises should be kept closed after 9pm.