Agenda item

Variation of condition 3 of 6/2005/0327/DM to allow external seating on east side of front courtyard

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application to vary condition 3 of 6/2005/0327/DM to allow external seating on the east side of the front courtyard (for copy see file of Minutes).

J Byers, Planning Team Leader (South and West Area) gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

In presenting the report the Officer referred to a proposed amendment to condition 3 to remove the requirement that the chairs should only be removed from the patio for winter storage, repair or disposal.

Councillor J Rowlandson local Member spoke in favour of the application, advising that he had called the application to Committee in view of the previous planning history. Times had changed and the NPPF now favoured economic growth. Small businesses in Teesdale should be supported and the Parish Council had offered no objections. The business would be an asset to the area in terms of tourism and would enhance Gainford village for its residents and visitors.

J Leversuch, local resident spoke against the application. She advised that she had lived above the coffee shop since 2005 and her objection related to the potential for further noise pollution in the surrounding environment. Currently she could hear people outside the premises talking at any time of year, and this would be exacerbated if the application was granted. The hours requested for seating outside would affect her quality of life as she did not work regular 9am to 5pm hours.

J Glendenning reiterated the concerns of J Leversuch and expressed concern that a key objector had not been notified of the meeting.  In making his representations Mr Glendenning referred to key aims in the NPPF. No reference had been made by Officers to a key NPPF principle regarding noise and sustainable development. The report stated that the proposals would help maintain the vitality of Gainford yet the NPPF referred to ‘ensuring the vitality of town centres’; Gainford was a village in a rural location.

The NPPF also stated that Planning Authorities should protect areas of tranquillity. This was echoed in community based consultation and the Neighbourhood Plan stressed the importance of protecting the village green.

He commented that the Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal had not been quoted in the report, and that condition 3 should not be varied, as the negative impact of outside seating would not be mitigated.

He understood that on the site visit a table and chair had been set up to illustrate the noise created by moving the seating, however in reality there would be 20 chairs moved about all day every day.

In conclusion he understood that it would be difficult for Planning Officers to restrict the seating to one side of the patio.

Mr Liddle, the agent spoke on behalf of the applicant informing Members that the business employed local people and its re-opening after a year of closure had been welcomed locally. Much of the coffee shop’s trade was at lunchtime and early afternoon. Given this, the type of clientele who visited the coffee shop, and the limitations of the weather it was difficult to understand the level of disturbance objectors felt would be caused by the seating.

Mr Liddle also noted that another business in the immediate vicinity regularly placed tables outside.

The Planning Team Leader responded to comments made by the objectors. He advised that condition 3 clearly stated where the seating should be placed and the permitted hours. This would ensure that enforcement action could be taken if either of these provisions were contravened. Whilst the patio could seat 20 it was unlikely that the area would be at full capacity at any one time. In relation to the Appeal the Inspectors’ decision to dismiss the Appeal was referred to in the report and was also concerned with evening usage of the premises up to 20.00 hours. The hours of use of the patio were being reduced from those previously proposed which was deemed to be acceptable.

Councillor Richardson, who was also a local Member advised that he had received a lot of local representation about this application, including from residents of the lower side of the village. He was fully aware of the planning history of the premises and there had been a number of unsuccessful attempts to have the condition removed to allow outdoor seating. The same concerns expressed previously relating to noise were unchanged. He advised that he would abstain from voting on the application.

Councillor Davidson considered that condition 3 of permission 6/2005/0327/DM was restrictive and had noted on the site visit that a public house nearby had seating outside which could potentially be used until late at night. He was of the view that the proposal would be a boost to the local economy.

This view was shared by Councillor Boyes who added that the coffee shop had been closed for a year due to concerns about the ongoing viability of the business and this emphasised the need to support local businesses. He was therefore inclined to move that the condition be amended from 11am to 9am.

The Planning Team Leader referred Members to the previous Planning Inspectorate decision and said that the 11am start had been chosen in the light of this.

Councillor Mowbray concurred with the views put forward, adding that it would be unfair to refuse the application for 5 tables; there had been no noise when the chair, which had been placed on the patio for the site visit, had been moved because it had padded feet, and there was a theatre next door which generated noise. There was a presumption that there would be 20 people outside all the time but this would be unlikely, particularly in the winter months.

Councillor Clare stated that in his opinion the aim of the coffee shop was to become a bustling and thriving business, and therefore it should be accepted that 20 people could sit outside and generate noise at any one time. The issue was whether it would be to such an extent to warrant refusal of the application. In any locality, particularly during the summer months people spent more time outside and in their own gardens creating general noise during acceptable hours, which in his neighbourhood was between 7am and 11pm. People had to put up with some noise. The NPPF had established a presumption in favour of sustainable development and on balance he felt that the proposals were acceptable.

Councillor Dixon also pointed out that in terms of the noise issue, customers could already stand and congregate in the patio area during opening hours.

In determining the application Members gave consideration to the proposed hours and concluded that as the coffee shop was open from 8.30am it would be reasonable to allow seating outside from 9.00am Monday to Saturday. Members also considered that condition 3 should be amended to give discretion to the applicant regarding the removal of the chairs from the patio. 

Following discussion it was Resolved:

That condition 3 of permission 6/2005/0327/DM be varied to allow outdoor seating on the east patio between the hours of 09.00 to 17.00 Monday to Saturday and 11.00 to 16.00 on Sundays, and subject to the original remaining conditions covering use of the premises as a whole, with the following amendment to condition 3:-

‘3.        External tables and seating shall only be placed within the eastern side of the front patio, as shown on the plans hereby approved, and notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, the use of these external tables and chairs, including setting up or taking down, shall not be permitted other than between the hours of 9.00-17.00 Monday to Saturday and 11.00-16.00 on Sundays. The tables and chairs shall not have metal feet’.