Agenda item

Public Speaking:

Mrs Justine Woodley, on behalf of local residents, in objection

Objected on behalf of Grace Gardens Residents Association, including all residents of Wade Court and GraceGardens, who have been disturbed by activities at the Manor in the past and might be in future.  Was concerned about a number of issues relating to the change of use, although neighbours do not consider this will be any change - weddings and parties have been going on here for a number of years and they have had to deal with noise and disturbance issues regularly as a result.  Said there has been a significant problem with loud noise late at night as guests are leaving, and numerous complaints have been made to the Manor about this.  Thought it unlikely that any constraints would stop this being a problem, but wanted to be sure at the very least that guests will not be allowed to leave via the current main entrance and that no vehicles are allowed into the car park at the front of the Manor at night.  Understood that there might be new doors into the ballroom, and said that if these are open during events, the noise level is likely to be as high as it is when there is external amplified music – this has been a problem in the past.  Also requested sufficient controls over food smells and waste, including the quiet disposal of empty bottles.  Said it is impossible to believe that there would not be further traffic and parking issues, especially on Hatherley Lane, which is already a busy and dangerous road.  Said people regularly park on Wade Court and on Hatherley Lane alongside Wade Court, making it dangerous for residents turning into Hatherley Lane, and increasing the possibility of a serious accident. 

Said local residents have tried to maintain a working relationship with the owners of the Manor in the past, but have found that complaints are not attended to.  Realised the tension between running a wedding business in close proximity to residential buildings, and said that although the new owners have given neighbours a number of assurances, neighbours remain concerned that business imperatives will soon diminish the owners’ concern for their neighbours.  If the application is permitted, neighbours expect there to be comprehensive restrictions to avoid serious problems in the future.  Said there have already been a number of incidents of loud music and noise late at night – amenity has been severely impacted and will continue to be so, probably to a greater extent given in increase in activity.  Said this is due to regular, loud noise which can be heard by residents in their houses and gardens, at any time but especially late at night. 

Ms Madge, applicant, in support:

Began by saying that she understands neighbours’ concerns, and that noise levels were not managed well under the previous ownership.  Told Members that she has a lot of relevant experience having run an events company in Suffolk, where there were no complaints from local residents.  Could see that the increase in the number of events was cause for concern, but said most of these will take place in the banqueting hall and should mean a reduction in noise for neighbours – having spoken with residents, most of the noise issues seem to have arisen from the marquees, where noise levels could not be monitored.  Marquees will no longer be needed with the banqueting hall is use.  Added that the venue is there to be enjoyed by everyone in the area, and that jobs will be created.

Member debate:

MJC, in response:

-          told Members that there were two conditions missing, referred to in the officer report at 6.4.2 – the two conditions suggested by Environmental Health. The first concerns noise spillage, which can be controlled by the doors being closed at certain times, and the second is a standard condition regarding kitchen extraction equipment, which has been discussed with KR, who has no objection to it.  Said these conditions will need to be added if consent is granted.

RG:  regarding the COU part of the application, is worried that if this is approved, the applicants will be able to carry on unfettered with wedding functions, and still have the right to put up marquees in the grounds and do what they want.  Said if the proposal is permitted, the authority needs to be fully in control in the future.  Suggested that permitted development rights – allowing marquees and amplified music – could be taken away, and the applicant would have to re-apply for this individually.  Recognised the needs of the business and appreciated that jobs would be provided, but also recognised the needs of local residents, and felt that the applicant shouldn’t be given carte blanche.  Did not want to fetter business but did want to protect residents.

PT:  was puzzled, as she was looking for Environmental Health comments on the gazebo and pavilion, and hours of use, and could not find them in this application.  Asked if it was right to mention these now.

CC:  confirmed that this would be OK, if her comments are relevant.

PT:  thought they were, in relation to noise.  Noted there was no mention of fireworks in the report, even though this is mentioned in several letters from residents.  Asked how this could be influenced by the planning permission.  Noted that EH suggested a condition limiting use of the gazebo and pavilion for the conducting of weddings, music etc to 9.00am to 6.00pm, and for no more than one hour a day, but said that any music would be heard through the open windows of the banqueting hall, so would the same conditions apply to that?  Also questioned how this would be enforced, and wondered why conditions like these are included when officers know they will be very difficult to enforce.

SW:  agreed strongly with RG, saying he is almost a neighbour of Manor by the Lake – lives on the other side of the A40 – and has experienced noise from the Manor, as well as fireworks as late as 11 o’clock at night, not just on nights when they are to be expected such as around 5^th November and 31^st December.  Thought this must be intolerable for residents of GraceGardens.  In regard to RG’s comments, said if something can be done to contain noise in the building that will be OK, but was very reluctant to vote for either application if something substantial can’t be done to protect the neighbours from the existing noise, let alone any future noise.

BF:  agrees but said CBC isn’t good with enforcement, and issues can rumble on for months or even years.  Said it’s easy to put conditions on a planning permission, but the permission could end up with so many conditions attached that the applicants will be restricted in carrying out their business, or else it won’t be possible to monitor and enforce the conditions.  Said experience of enforcement is not good.

BD:  agreed with BF’s comments on enforcement. Noted on planning view that the houses are very close, and for residents it would be like having music and fireworks in their own back gardens.  Was reluctant to vote for the scheme – thought it would be like opening Pandora’s Box for people living at the back.

MS:  heard what was being said but wanted to make an analogy with people living around the racecourse.  Said the applicants are new to the building, and if a good rapport with neighbours can be established as has been done with residents living close to the racecourse, the venue’s importance to the community will be accepted and local people will support it.  Said the Manor House is historical and needs to be used, otherwise it could fall into disrepair, and if the noise is intolerable, enforcement officers will be notified.  Suggested giving the applicants a crack at developing their new business, and hoped that they will respect the local community in doing so.

KS:  was not on planning view, but had gone to look at the site on her own.  Thought it very interesting – a beautiful building in an appealing setting.  Noted that Wade Close is really close to the building, and having read the representations, updates and conditions, is not convinced that the permission and conditions are strong enough to give residents the peace of mind they deserve.  Said the hours of opening were OK but how and where people leave the venue is also important, suggesting that the back exit near the industrial area would be better than the current arrangement.  Also thought a condition relating to fireworks was important, as these would be so close to residential properties, and thought the hours of operation should also be looked at again.

MJC, in response:

-          regarding fireworks, said it is not within the local authority’s gift to control these, regardless of whether they are used by the venue or by a private individual – anyone can have fireworks in their back garden;

-          on the question of marquees, referred Members to the Cheltenham Festivals applications, and said there were permitted development rights to allow marquees to be erected for 28 days of the year, including the setting up and taking down.  If the applicant wanted more days, planning permission would be required.  Asked Members if they wanted to restrict this;

-          said it was not uncommon to remove PD rights for new houses, and PD rights for marquees could be removed – a further planning permission would then be needed to allow them; Members needed to think whether this is what they want;

-          regarding hours of operation, said there are no suggested restrictions in the report – the property is licensed and this is what controls the issue.  The Environmental Health team does not consider restrictions necessary, but if they are, it is up the EH to set them;

-          corrected his own earlier comments regarding noise spillage – Condition 2 – saying that as long as the three doors are kept closed, EH has no objection;

-          toBF’s comments about whether it is worth including conditions on planning permissions if they are not enforced, said this type of condition is usually enforced by neighbours, and if the conditions are breached, the local authority will know about it via complaints to EH.  Said this arrangement is not uncommon.

KR, in response:

-          reinforced her comments that this is a large building in lovely grounds which could be spoilt if it does not have a fundamental use;

-          reminded Members of the earlier proposal concerning the Odeon – a large building with no future use and now facing demolition – and thought this proposal, which would provide a use for the house and the garden would prevent it having to be subdivided into flats in the future.

AM: referred to 1.3 on page 178 of the report which states that the established use of the site has been to host weddings and other functions, and asked what the impact would be if the application is refused – the applicant will simply continue with the established use.

PT:  was confused.  Noted that the second application (13/00383/FUL) refers to hours of use (9.00am-6.00pm) but these don’t apply to the first application (13/00691/COU).  Said even with the best will in the world to restrict noise and loss of amenity for neighbours, as stated by Environmental Health, there was no mention of fireworks – fireworks are noisy, and noise is part and parcel of what needs to be enforced and controlled. Considered it important to establish whether we can detail fireworks noise in a condition, so that EH can at least have some effect on it.

RG:  would like to see PD rights withdrawn, saying that this wouldn’t fetter business and would allow the local authority to keep some control.  Regarding the conditions on noise, said if the noise levels at boundary points are tested by Environmental Health, at least the residents will know there is a set standard.  Realised it was a long shot, but wondered if an informative could be included, encouraging the applicants to look at how the racecourse and Park Campus engage with local residents – holding regular meetings, no fireworks late at night etc – to foster better relations.

MJC, in response:

-          to AM, said the building was previously attached to a wider complex, and its use as a wedding /function venue was ancillary to that.  The current application is to establish its own use as a stand-alone venue.  Its previous use is relevant to the application, but its future use can no longer be considered as ancillary;

-          to PT, regarding hours of operation, said the importance of controlling noise was heightened for the outside structures (13/00383/FUL), and that Environmental Health officers don’t consider it to be an issue for the COU application;

-          to RG, said if EH officers thought the noise level was likely to be an issue, they would impose restrictions, but with the doors kept shut, they consider that noise levels will be contained and therefore OK.  Said it might be a convoluted approach, to keep the doors closed, but this was their clear view;

-          regardingRG’s suggested informative, said engagement with the community is generally a very good message to give to an applicant, as had been demonstrated by the Cheltenham Festivals applications.  If Members were happy for them to do so, officers can craft an informative to this effect.

KS:  was trying to be positive and wear an NPPF hat, but found it a struggle.  Did not consider all the issues had been resolved.  Was concerned that Environmental Health officers had not suggested any restriction on hours – said people are naturally very noisy, high-spirited and drunk at weddings and celebrations, and felt this might have a negative impact on the local community.  Said it would be very difficult for Manor staff to shepherd hundreds of guests, celebrating a happy day.  Cannot support the proposal as it stands, though may be more in favour of a temporary permission, perhaps for one year.  If the proposal goes ahead as it is, it will lead to problems for the enforcement team.

SW:  agreed that these conditions can’t be enforced, but said there was a similar situation at ASDA, where the management took great strides to get together with neighbours – suggests Manor by the Lake do similar.  Would support the proposal if it is for a temporary period.

MJC, in response:

-          said the problem with a temporary permission is that it will create a difficult route regarding business planning – the nature of the business is to take bookings for next year and beyond.  A temporary permission is not a suited use here.  If Members do not consider the recommendation and conditions suitable, they need to say why not.

BD:  referred back to earlier comments about how Cheltenham Festivals work with local residents, saying this situation is similar.  Said residents have been included in decision-making and attended regular meetings, and the issues are now starting to be sorted out, after two years.  Thought this could be done here, making sure all residents are involved and stopping problems before they get out of hand, as done by Cheltenham Festivals.

CC:  considered MJC had responded to Members’ concerns and moved to the vote.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

1 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

Having sat for four hours, Members voted on whether the meeting should continue or reconvene on Friday - a vote for the meeting to continue was carried.