Agenda item

Extension of the existing ballroom into the existing toilets, erection of a new extension to house new toilet facilities, creation of a new timber framed deck and pergola to rear elevation.

The Team Leader - Central and East, Alan Dobie gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Team Leader - Central and East advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for extension of the existing ballroom, erection of a new extension for toilet facilities, creation of a new timber framed deck and pergola to rear elevation and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Team Leader - Central and East noted representations had been received from the Parish Council, expressing concerns relating to potential additional noise from guests using the decking area.  He advised that Environmental Health had noted no objections, subject to a noise management plan that was agreed by Environmental Health being adhered to, as conditioned.  It was noted that Tree Officers had no objections subject to trees being protected during construction.

The Committee were informed that 4 letters of objection had been received from residents, and a letter from the Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership.  It was noted that all objections related to noise, particularly from outside areas that were close to residential properties.

The Team Leader - Central and East noted the application was to a well established hotel and would be used to increase business by extending the ballroom and improving the outdoor space.  He added that both the Local Plan and NPPF encouraged development that would contribute to the economy, especially in terms of established businesses.  It was noted that the proposed extension was functional, made in brickwork and single storey, and it was not felt that it would impact visually on properties nearby.  It was explained that the pergola design was proportionate to the design of the hotel.

Members were informed that the impact on surrounding residents in terms of noise had been raised as an ongoing issue, and it was noted the application, through the noise management plan, provided an opportunity to address those issues.

The Team Leader - Central and East concluded by noting the scale of the proposed application was acceptable, and that with the updated noise impact assessment and management plan the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Chairman thanked the Team Leader - Central and East, noted there were several speaker, and asked Local Member, Councillor J Blakey to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor J Blakey noted photographs submitted referred to those displayed on the projector screen.  She added that back in history, in the early 1970s, there had not been issues in terms of the numbers of people at the hotel and noise levels.  It was explained that over time as the venue became popular for weddings and events, late night noise had been noted as an issue.  Councillor J Blakey noted that it was recognised that the hotel was an asset, however, the issues of noise levels, with neighbours being very close, had become notable.  She added that the houses had only been built 2-3 years before the hotel development.

Councillor J Blakey noted the noise impact assessment and the choice of songs, however, noted this did not reflect live music or the levels of bass in modern music, and how that type of thumping bass could travel, such that nearby properties were affected even with their windows closed.  It was added that in summer with their windows open, residents would often hear foul and abusive language and this had an effect of the lives of those living nearby. 

Councillor J Blakey noted there had been 17 wedding events held in August 2017, this had an impact on people living nearby.  She noted that ideally the ballroom would be moved around to the side, however, she noted the ballroom was where it was and noted that this hotel was not set in its own large grounds and therefore the impact on surrounding residents was different in this case.  

The Chairman thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Councillor S Dunn to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor S Dunn noted the extension of the ballroom would have a positive impact in terms of the business and in terms of jobs and the hotel.  He noted he agreed with Councillor J Blakey in terms of potential issues of noise, especially from the pergola.  He noted that the hotel was already in existence and that this could represent an opportunity to improve conditions.  Councillor S Dunn noted the replacement of doors with larger bi-fold doors and felt that the noise management plan could have gone further in terms of containing noise and moving a smoking area to the car park for example.  He noted the opportunities for noise pollution improvements, and the overall benefits to the scheme, though noted concerns in terms of the potential for noise from the pergola and not being fit for loud functions, with 11.00pm being too late, people having the need to sleep.

The Chairman thanked Councillor S Dunn and asked Mrs A McGowan and Mr G McGowen to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs A McGowan noted she and her husband had lived in their property since 1976 and represented the local residents that were unable to attend the Committee due to work commitments.  She noted that the noise had become dreadful over a number of years, and a number of complaints had been made to the hotel staff but to no avail.  She added that the songs chosen for the noise impact assessment contained no loud bass or disco music, she noted that loud bass was very disturbing and meant residents could not use their back bedrooms and could not sleep in comfort.  Mrs A McGowan noted that all activities seemed to be along the boundary with Leyland Close and that parties, weddings, smoking and barbeques all took place in one corner and she felt they amounted to an infringement of residents living conditions.

Mr G McGowan added that the houses were only a few yards or metres away from the hotel and that while the proposed extension would be very close, the issue was more in terms of the decking, with smokers exiting and re-entering the building, leaving doors open and allowing noise to escape.  He noted that there used to be a facility for smokers on the far side of the hotel, though subsequent to complaints from residents of Kirby Drive this had been moved and a sign erected to ask patrons to keep noise levels down.  Mr G McGowan noted he was a patron of the hotel bar, however, repeated calls for management after management to turn down and/or around speakers had been ignored.

The Chairman thanked Mrs A McGowan and Mr G McGowan and asked Mr J White, Agent on behalf of the Applicant and Mr C Eedie, the Hotel Manager, to speak in support of the application.

Mr J White noted that he was the Architect and it had not been mentioned that the ballroom element would be contained within what represented the existing footprint, the increased size allowing for greater flexibility in terms of how the room was organised, presenting and opportunity to reduce sound pressure levels and reposition equipment so that it faced away from residents.  He added that the existing timber framed doors and windows would be replaced with better technology and that in preparing the application a lot of work had been undertaken with Environmental Protection Officers in terms of the conditions relating to noise.

Mr C Eedie explained he had worked closely with Environmental Health in terms of the noise management plan and that the extension would provide scope to reposition the DJ or band such to minimise the impact of any noise.  He added that the noise assessment had referred to new materials being used and added that if music was being played, the doors to the outside space would be closed.  Mr C Eedie noted the smoking area to the front of the hotel and that guests were encouraged to use this area.  He added that weddings were conducted close to the hotel and the ceremonies were not microphoned.

Mr C Eedie added that demand was increasing for the hotel, including a lot more for the use in terms of conferences.  He noted that the application would help secure an additional 7 full time jobs, both front and rear of house and there would be a desire to try and recruit locally.  He concluded by noting the hotel was going from strength to strength, however, the application would maximise the potential of the facility and he reiterated that a lot of work had been undertaken with Environmental Health and this demonstrated how seriously the hotel took issues of disruption to residents.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked the Team Leader - Central and East if he had any comments on the issues raised.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the rear garden of the hotel, while part of the curtilage of the premises, it was not subject to the controls, however, the management plan would potentially have benefits for residents.

The Chairman thanked the Team Leader - Central and East and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor M McKeon noted she was a Trustee of Bowburn and Parkhill Community Partnership, however had not contributed to the discussions they had on the matter.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that if she had taken no part and had an open mind then it was a personal, non-prejudicial interest and she could take part in the decision making.

Councillor M McKeon noted that she agreed in relation to the benefits to this local business and appreciated these when visiting the site.  She added that she was not convinced in terms of sufficient noise mitigation.

Councillor I Jewell asked as regards the issue being contentious and whether notice had been given in terms of the application.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted the usual consultation process had been followed, including notices at the site, with several objections having been received, as summarised in the report.  Councillor I Jewell noted he felt some of the issues could perhaps have been solved before it had reached this point.

Councillor M Davinson asked as regards what ability the Authority had to follow up in terms of non-adherence to the noise management plan, what steps could be taken.  The Team Leader - Central and East noted he would try to check.

Councillor I Jewell noted that there could be mitigation measures in place, however, it was often customers in these circumstances that would go in and out themselves, not directed by staff.  He asked how the Applicant would seek to address that aspect.  Mr C Eedie noted on evenings there was a resident DJ and he had instructions that if the door was opened a certain time, that the music should be cut off.  He added management have a boundary walk every 30 minutes and would ensure doors were shut and monitor sound levels.

The Team Leader - Central and East noted that the noise management plan set out the hours that music was permitted, how often and the control of volume would be via limiters.  He added that Environmental Health were assured in terms of doors, closers and insulation and issues such as turning speakers away from residents.  He added this would not be an issue for the Local Planning Authority to enforce, and he was not sure as regards the sanctions available to Environmental Health.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee if they had a proposal in terms of the application.

Councillor M Davinson noted Members were not sure as regards noise management issues and needed more information in terms of the actions that could be taken in enforcing the management plan to be able to make a decision.

The Chairman noted that he felt that it would be an issue for Environmental Health, to visit and speak to the hotel should an issue arise, however, the decision in terms of the application was for the Committee and a Member could move to defer if they felt appropriate. 

Councillor G Bleasdale noted in the past many businesses have said they would agree to such conditions and have then gone back on this.  Councillor I Jewell noted in terms of noise management, it was how to prevent noise spilling out and this would have been a useful question to put to a representative from Environmental Health.

The Chairman noted that the report stated “after extensive talks” Environmental Health were now satisfied.

Councillor M Davinson noted he felt the Committee needed some further answers and moved that the application be deferred.

Councillor J Turnbull noted that it perhaps showed that the applicant had not spoken to local residents as regards the application, he noted an application in his area where there had been discussions with residents had taken place first.

Councillor G Bleasdale seconded that the application be deferred.    

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED.