Agenda item

Public Speaking:

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

Said local residents believe that these additional structures will greatly increase the noise disturbance they have suffered for a number of years.  Said the first concern is amplified noise, which will be quite unacceptable in any outside area as far as residents are concerned.  Environmental Health officers have said that PA may be used for an hour every day, but told Members that a recent marquee event in the gardens which used amplified noise was so loud that residents could not hear their own televisions inside double-glazed homes with the windows closed.  If amplified noise is allowed, this level of disturbance could occur every day throughout the summer.  Said residents’ second concern is that these areas will be used by smokers and drinker to congregate, so creating additional loud noise.  Up until now, Manor staff have not always been able to control wedding guests to ensure they use designated smoking areas, and the current smoking area is a little further away from Grace Gardens but not far enough to prevent noise disturbance.  Management of smokers remains a serious issue for residents.  The third concern is that EH officers suggest weddings and other events can take place between 8.00am and 9.00pm.  Said 9.00pm is late and could mean music, singing and applause from 150 people well after small children are likely to be in bed.  Finally, said the proposed site of the gazebo is only about 20m from the nearest house, though it could clearly be situated elsewhere in the grounds – there seems to be only minor aesthetic justification for its proposed siting.  It could be positioned on the Hatherley Lane side of the Manor, though noise would still remain an issue for Grace Gardens and Wade Court residents.  Said Manor by the Lake is very close to neighbouring houses and cannot therefore expect to function as a country estate might do in hosting weddings – amenity will be significantly and negatively impacted by the addition of these structures in the grounds. 

Ms Madge, applicant, in support:

Told Members that despite British weather, many couples want to be married outside, and the pavilion and gazebo are important for her business:  the pavilion will be an ideal backdrop for larger ceremonies, the gazebo for small ceremonies.  Said they will be used for the ceremonies and photos only, and will not be used as smoking shelters – there will not be any seating to discourage people from spending additional time there.  Said that in order to be a successful wedding venue, it was necessary to offer both indoor and outdoor facilities.

Member debate:

RG:  wasn’t happy with the Environmental Health statement referring to low key, background music and small PA systems; said the noise and decibel level should be at a set standard and guidelines were needed – otherwise how could this be enforced?  Said EH officers and planning officers should sort this out.  Regarding the control of smokers, said the hours of use were set at 8.00am to 9.00pm, but there would always be overspill at the end of those hours.  Noted that the applicant said the gazebo would be used for small ceremonies, and thought there needed to be a definition of ‘small ceremony’ from the applicants – did this mean 150 people, less or more?  Said this information was needed before any permission could be granted.

KS:  asked why the hours of operation had changed from 9.00am to 6.00pm as suggested by EH officers, to 8.00am to 9.00pm as set out in the condition.  Also wanted to know how access would be permitted outside the suggested one hour’s daily use – how will the gazebo and pavilion be shut off to ensure nobody uses them at other times?

MJC, in response:

-          regarding the Environmental Health position, said their initial stance was that hours should be limited to 9.00am to 6.00pm, for amplified music and voices from the gazebo and pavilion.  This had subsequently been discussed with the applicant, and the site visited, as a result of which a more relaxed stance of 8.00am to 9.00pm, for no more than one hour each day, had been thought appropriate.  Said the impact was not likely to be so great as to restrict the noise any further.  Said Members can decide if they consider these hours appropriate or not, adding similar advice to that already given, that it will be clearer to impose hours of operation rather than noise levels.  Had a similar discussion regarding Cheltenham Festivals, saying that hours of operation were more clear cut, and if Members were not comfortable with an end time of 9.00pm, they should suggest a time which they are comfortable with;

-          to KS’s question on how to prevent the structures being used beyond the set times, said once again that we would rely on residents of neighbouring properties to report any breaches – this is common practice in the town, as this kind of situation cannot be policed 24/7.  It will be flagged up and dealt with accordingly.  If Members are uncomfortable with the proposed hours of operation, they should debate this, as it will be easier to enforce.

GB:  had no huge problem with the pavilion which was further from the houses and shouldn’t be especially annoying for residents, but did have a problem with the gazebo which is just too close.  Would be happy to permit the pavilion but not the gazebo – if the application is permitted and the one hour’s use a day is always around 9.00pm, it would be very annoying for neighbours.  Thought reducing the time to 6.00pm would be better but probably unviable. 

BD:  said this is exactly what she was about to say – agreed with GB 110% that the pavilion by the lake is OK, the gazebo not.  Will not vote for the proposal as it stands.

AC:  said his comments had also been pre-empted and he too considers the gazebo to be too close to the houses, adding that an hour’s noise at midday would be very different from an hour’s noise at 9.00pm.  At the very least, said the hours of usage should be restricted.

MJC, in response:

-          said Members were talking in terms of a split decision – he had wondered if this might happen and believed such a decision could not be issued.  Therefore suggested a more creative approach:  that Members vote on a different officer recommendation.  As it seems the pavilion is acceptable and the gazebo is not, suggested a new recommendation,  that Members delegate the decision back to officers, who can negotiate removal of the gazebo, following discussion with the Chair and Vice-Chair.  Otherwise the permission is likely to be refused.

CC:  asked CL to comment.

CL, in response:

-          said that although she believed split decisions can be issued when elements of a proposal can be separated out, she has worked for a different council where it has been done.  However, she had not been made aware this might be considered and could not provide authorities on the point, therefore in view of this she considered that MJC had put forward an appropriate alternative

MS:  suggested that the easiest way out is to grant the permission as it stands, but limit the hours of operation on the gazebo to, say, 5.00pm.

PT:  said this comment pre-empted hers, and suggested 9.00pm should be a cut-off point – no music after that time - and new hours of operation for both venues would make it less complicated.  Said, however, that she had no problem with a split decision either.

MJC, in response:

-          said MS’s solution was better, more NPPF-compliant, and a cleaner way to do it.

GB:  remained concerned, saying that any hours of operation for the gazebo will be arbitrary, and we have no real knowledge about what it will be like for neighbours.  Said the position of the gazebo is wrong, and would like to stick to MJC’s suggestion that officers negotiate the removal of the gazebo.

RG:  noted that MJC was bowing to MS’s expertise, but thought his original remarks were the best way forward.  The gazebo should at the very least be moved away from the wall.  Asked for an answer to his earlier question – what exactly constitutes a small ceremony?

KS:  agrees with GB about a split decision.  Is still uneasy about the pavilion being used until 9.00pm, as noise travels a long way – has experience with this from events at Brizen Field.  Thought a 7.00pm cut-off would be the best solution, which wouldn’t disturb small children in bed with windows open on warm evenings.

MJC, in response:

-          to RG, said what constitutes as small ceremony is irrelevant if the gazebo is to be removed from the application, in line with the new officer recommendation.

GB:  was still concerned about hours of operation – thought these very arbitrary, and was uncomfortable making a decision with this uncertainty.

CC:  asked MJC to sum up the situation now reached.

MJC, in response:

-          said the officer recommendation is now that Members delegate authority back to officers to issue the decision, to approve the pavilion as set out in the report, and with the assumption that the applicant, having heard the debate and Members’ concerns, will remove the gazebo from the application.

Vote taken on new officer recommendation (above)

11 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT