Agenda item

Officer introduction

GD introduced the application as above, he advised that permission had previously been given which enabled the premises to change from use class A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant and café).  The application is seeking to vary an existing condition which restricts the operating hours of the existing extraction fan and extend the operating hours to 10:30pm Monday to Saturday and to 5:30pm on Sunday and bank holidays. The officer recommendation is to permit subject to the installation of the proposed noised attenuation measures. The application is before committee at the request of Cllr Dilys Barrell due to the potential impact on neighbouring amenity.

Miss Smart, agent, in support

Miss Smart advised that she was acting on behalf of the applicants who were seeking to vary condition 4 of the approved planning application which deals purely with the use of the extraction equipment. She explained that the current hours of use restrict the operating needs of business and as such the applicant was seeking to extend the operating hours of the extraction fan, she confirmed that the operating hours of the restaurant and garden would remain unchanged as a result of the proposal. She highlighted that the bakery was an award winning business which contributed to the local economy, however, the current constraints placed significant restrictions on the business, only allowing them to trade at lunch time. The business predicted they had lost approximately £50,000 in revenue over the last year due to their inability to prepare and serve food into the evening; the bakery element was also unable to function in the mornings. She explained that the noise attenuation measures proposed had been advised by technical noise consultants to ensure noise was kept to an acceptable level for neighbouring areas; a technical noise report also accompanied the application. She noted that environmental health had raised no objections to the proposed noise attenuation measures and the officer report had concluded that the extended hours would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents. She reiterated that approving the application would support the growth of a local successful business as the restrictions had inevitably impacted on the businesses viability.

Councillor Barrell, in objection

Councillor Barrell read out a statement on behalf of the residents at 44 Suffolk Road who were unable to attend the meeting. In the letter the neighbours explained that their property consisted of their business (Eden Health and Beauty Spa) at the front and their residential property to the rear. They were concerned that the outside cooking area extension had been erected without planning permission, and this was located just 6 feet away from their bedroom. They stressed that the business is located in a conservation and residential area and they are regularly affected by noise, cooking smells and smoke from Baker and Graze, with cooking starting at 5am. They were concerned that the extended use of the fans would increase the cooking noises and smells and felt that they deserved the right to a peaceful family life outside of usual business hours. They suggested that the fans be redirected to the front of the shop, exiting on Suffolk Road with proper restrictions put in place for garden use, including the outside cooking area. They advised that Baker and Graze did not adhere to the current restrictions with fans often being turned on much earlier than permitted, and the garden and fans being used until 11pm. They explained that the situation had caused considerable stress to them and felt that even with the attenuation measures the sounds would be audible and the smells problematic.

Councillor BarrelI expressed her own concerns for the application and explained that whilst they wanted to maintain the Suffolks as a vibrant, lively area they needed to be cautious of the fact that it is a residential area with neighbours extremely close to the premises.  She noted that the fan can be disturbing and for residents, this noise continues all day every day, including Sundays and Bank Holidays. She requested that the committee carefully consider both the needs of the business and residents.

Councillor Barrell left the room for the duration of the debate.

Member debate

MC: noted that the neighbour’s concerns were unrelated to the application as the application was simply to vary condition 4 regarding hours of use of extraction equipment.  Whilst he was disappointed to hear the neighbour was being disturbed by smells and noise, he reasoned that they could only consider whether they agree or disagree with varying the hours of operation.

SW: acknowledged that the Suffolks was a mixed-use area with lots of shops in close proximity to residential areas and that was simply the nature of it. He noted that during the site visit the fans had not appeared to be too disturbing and that in any case, you were unable to hear background noise after a while. He asked the officers whether decibel readings for the fans had been taken and questioned whether measures were being taken to reduce those noises? He noted that if the applicants were breaking the conditions on their current application then it is a matter for the enforcement officers, not the planning committee. 

RW: Agreed with Councillor Barrell that it is a matter of proper balance when arriving at a decision. He acknowledged that Suffolk Road had always been an area with restaurants and vibrant commercial activity and residents living in the area were aware of that. He didn’t feel that extending the hours to 22:30 was unreasonable and agreed with Councillor Wheeler that after a while you don’t notice background.

BF: Felt that the neighbour and Councillor Barrell’s concerns were about ancillary noise as a result of running a bakery and cafe in a residential area which is a different matter. He noted that the fans do comply with legislation and he did not feel that the hours proposed were excessive.

DS: During the site visit had felt that the noise from the courtyard which was intermittent was more of a disturbance than the noise from the fans.

SC: During the site visit he  had been struck by how noisy the front of the building was and had felt the back garden was fairly quiet except for the noise from the fans, and so he could see why neighbours found it disturbing. He questioned what reassurance officers had that the sound would be reduced to 33 decibels as had been promised?

GD, in response:

-       Advised that the current decibel levels had not been taken as part of this application by environmental health. He explained that when the applicant had applied for the first change of use, they wished to use the existing extractor fan which had been there before they had taken on the tenancy. However, environmental health had explained that the noise from the current extractor fans running to 22:30 would be unacceptable.

-       He explained that the environmental health officers comments regarding the reduction in decibel levels had been based on what the applicant had told them. To ensure that this was complied with, they had included an additional line to say the hours would only be extended if and when those attenuation measures were put in place. Therefore, if the committee were minded to permit the application, the owner of the business couldn’t start operating to 22:30 until the new extractor fan and attenuation measures were put in place.

-       Following a question from the Chair about whether environmental health would check that the sounds levels had been reduced. GD explained that if they have a noise complaint from a neighbour then they would take measurements and if these exceeded the required levels then they would be in breach of their planning condition and enforcement action would be taken.

-       He confirmed that he and the enforcement officer had been to site and so were aware of certain issues i.e. the garden being used outside of hours and a new structure that had been built without permission. He explained that once this application had been decided enforcement action would be taken if necessary.

-       He confirmed that if Members were minded to permit then the applicant would have to implement the new extraction fan with the attenuation measures so it wasn’t a case of deferring the application.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT