Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 6/2013/0135/DM/VP to extend opening hours to between 8.30am and 9pm on 35 days per year (Resubmission of refused application DM/14/00468/VOC)

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 6/2013/0135/DM/VP to extend opening hours to between 8.30am and 9.00pm on 35 days per year (resubmission of refused application DM/14/00468/VOC) (for copy see file of Minutes).

T Burnham, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Committee was informed that since the report had been published 2 further representations had been received expressing concern with regard to noise and disturbance and asking Members to take into account the properties above and to the rear of the coffee shop. A summary of the additional concerns received was relayed to Members.

Councillor James Rowlandson, local Member addressed the Committee in support of the application. He stated that the NPPF sought to support local business. The applicant sought to provide an amenity for residents and visitors alike which was recognised in paragraph 67 of the report. The coffee shop was an asset to Gainford and the applicant wanted to extend the opening hours for 35 days when there were village functions and theatre performances. The purpose of the application was to help ease congestion outside and allow people to enjoy a drink before and after theatre performances. The village also held well-organised events around the green and these social occasions would be enhanced by the extended opening of the coffee shop.

Mr Hepplewhite addressed the Committee on behalf of the owners and occupiers of 15 High Green and also the objectors who had made representation. There were 6 residential developments close to The Laurels and the resident of the flat directly above often suffered disturbance from both outside and inside the shop. The current application was not supported by a Noise Impact Assessment and it was for the applicant to prove that the proposals would not give rise to disturbance. His client had engaged an acoustics consultant who recommended noise insulation measures to protect the amenities of residents. The applicant had dismissed the specialist’s recommendations and had failed to have a noise assessment and noise insulation test carried out. Even if noise attenuation was provided this would not address noise after 6.00pm when residents expected peace and quiet. Sound travelled up the staircase to the property above. With regard to the outside seating area customers regularly congregated on the western side.

The applicant considered that the reasonable concerns of neighbours could be ignored and if the application was approved this would set a precedent which could be a material planning consideration. Residents were concerned that the applicant had asked for 11.00pm in the past and believed that she would do so again if permission was granted.

Mr Liddle, the applicant’s agent considered that much had been made of the planning history. Earlier applications had been considered some years ago under a different planning regime. The planning regime had since changed and there was now an emphasis in the NPPF on supporting local business. The applicant had previously made application for outside seating which had been supported by the Committee.

The coffee shop supported the community and functions, and the extended opening hours coincided with times when there was already significant disturbance. The property was largely adjacent to a theatre, village hall and village green where functions took place.

The current application had been made on the same grounds as those submitted for the outside seating. The applicant contended that the proposals would support local business and village life, in accordance with planning legislation.

With regard to the comments made by Mr Hepplewhite about noise there may have been discussions in respect of a noise assessment but this had never been discussed with the applicant.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the application the days in which the coffee shop wished to extend the hours would need to be specified.

Councillor Clare considered that the issue was one of neighbourliness and in this case had become a long-standing dispute. The Committee had to make a decision based on what was fair and what could be imposed. Members had reached a decision with regard to the opening hours of the café in 2013 which they considered to be fair and he stood by that. He therefore moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Richardson stated that he was a local Member and whilst he agreed with the sentiments of Councillor Rowlandson, and as much as he would like to support the application, at this point in time he could not as not enough had changed which would improve the outcome for residents in terms of disturbance.

Councillor Nicholson commented that, having visited the site and having heard the submissions made, on balance he accepted the Officer’s recommendation and seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.