Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and made the following key points:

·         There had been a high number of objections to this planning application

·         Details of the proposed changes in opening hours were set out

·         Planning permission was required for this item

·         An aerial shot of the sight was shown

·         A smaller smoking area would be provided

·         Noise and disturbance were the key issues arising out of the consultation

·         There was no objection from pollution control

·         With the proposed mitigation, the increased level of noise would be negligible

·         Approval would be for a 1 year temporary consent

·         There would be routine monitoring by staff of the noise and with a minimum of 3 doors

·         Neighbour’s concerns related to alleged poor management of the premises, noise disturbance, door staff and dispersal policy

·         A 1 year temporary consent was recommended which would then become permanent subject to adherence to restrictions on noise disturbance with a monitoring plan including acoustic consultants and compliance with the Door Staff dispersal policy

·         As part of the arrangements for the transition to a late night bar, the acoustic report would be assessed over a total period compared to a measured background to address concerns about it being assessed at a quiet time

·         The report referred to two complaints – the Perry Road being held open and volume levels. However, there were different types of noise to be assessed including both music and general noise and evidence showed that it was within acceptable limits

·         The use of the outdoor area would continue to be subject to adherence to the relevant conditions

·         The issue of the sound limiting device would be dealt with under the licencing regime

Officers were therefore recommending 1 year approval subject to conditions set out in the report.

In responding to members questions, officers made the following points:

·         Members concern was acknowledged that the enforcement of the smoking/non-seating area had not ever properly taken place on this site and that members of the public regularly smoked and sat at tables there. However, it was noted that the premises were open until midnight so enforcement would take place after then. Customers needed to leave the premises by 1am with staff to clear the site by 1.30am

·         There would be a condition for a monitoring plan to ensure these were adhered to particularly over key periods such as Christmas, New Year and the summer period

·         Although it was noted that this case could be brought back to Committee if it was called in or if there were a large number of objections, officers agreed that a report would come back after the end of the 1 year period

·         Members’ concerns were noted about the adverse impact on the planning application if the licence was refused. However, officers reminded members that the licencing and planning regimes operated separately under different legislative frameworks. Any decision made on this Planning Application had to be based on planning grounds and with a firm evidence base

·         Members concerns about the monitoring of litter and traffic for the 1 year permission were acknowledged. However, it was pointed out that the period in question was only from midnight to 2am and could be evidenced by written evidence and photos or through a diary if required to assess impact at different times of the year. In addition, officers could contact the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team if required

·         The impact of the proposed Clean Air Zone was acknowledged. However, officers reminded members that following the decision to refuse the 20^th February 2020 Proposed Park and Ride Transport hub on the grounds of air quality, the Inspector at appeal had deemed that it should only be given limited weight as it had not yet been approved

Members then made the following comments:

·         This scheme should not be supported due to the impact of noise and disturbance on the area

·         As the proposal was for a 1 year trial period and clear instructions had been given about collection of evidence of the impact of disturbance on the area, it should be supported.

·         The difference between the planning and licensing regimes in making this decision needed to be taken into account

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Margaret Hickman and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (10 for, 1 against) – that the application be approved for a 1 year trial period in the conditions contained within the report and on the basis that a report would be submitted back to Committee in a year’s time.