Agenda item

Application 21/01127/REM - 55 Sidbury

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the amendment of condition 2 of permission P14D0330 for the erection of a side extension to the restaurant at 55 Sidbury.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Denham.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

The application is for an amendment to condition 2 of P14K0330 (the approved plans) to allow for revised proposals showing an extended roof terrace with a glazed balustrade, a small extension and relocated toilets.  The amendments were highlighted in paragraph 3.1 of the report.  

 

The applicants stated that they are only changing the approved plans to provide for the balustrading around the roof as there was no restriction placed on the original permission to prevent the roof being used as a terrace for customers; they also conclude that the toilet relocation is minor; and that a S73 application is the most appropriate submission. In the course of the application, they have supported the view that they do not need permission to use the roof as a terrace with a legal opinion which was disputed by officers (appendix 1 attached to the report refers).

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

Public Representations

 

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

 

Frances Fosh and Sam Coomber (Objectors) and Phillip Rawle (Agent for the Applicant)

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         The first objector, whose property was adjacent to the proposal, raised concerns about the relocation of the toilet block which would be placed up tight to her garden wall.  The property is Grade II listed and the base of the wall is medieval.  It was preferred that the toilet block be moved back to where originally proposed which was less intrusive and would have less of an impact upon the amenities of those living nearby.

 

·         The second objector, who had properties in Amber Wharf, directly overlooked the roof terrace and was concerned over the increase in noise levels.  The roof terrace proposed is larger than originally allowed and would result in a loss of privacy.

 

·         The objectors responded to questions from Members in relation to noise and noise prevention, location of the bottle bins and the location of the toilets adjacent to the Grade II listed building wall.

 

·         The Senior Technical Officer from Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) referred to the Noise Assessment carried out by the applicant, and raised no objection to the application in terms of noise. The proposal for a 2.4m high wall adjacent to the roof terrace was seen as a mitigating measure.

 

·         The agent for the applicant in response stated that the toilet block would be built independently from the wall and confirmed that there would be toilets inside the building and if the Committee wished a condition can be applied to curfew the use of the outside toilets at 11.00pm.  He referred to the Noise Assessment that had been carried out which had been supported by WRS, and to the screening to be provided to prevent overlooking issues.

 

·         Reference was made to the last Planning Committee meeting whereby 2 conditions were imposed on the Feathers, Upper Tything which was to curfew the use of the roof terrace at 11.00pm and no live or ambient music, the agent stated that the applicant would be prepared to add these to this application.  The agent also stated that the property had been empty for two and a half years and that the applicants were committed to the proposal.

 

·         The Interim Head of Development Management suggested to Members that an archaeological condition could also be added in terms of the impact on the wall during digging.  This was agreed.

 

·         Members were pleased to hear of the additional conditions suggested by the applicant it was also requested that a management plan condition be added prior to the first use of the terrace.

 

·         The agent responded to questions from Members in relation to air pollution, location of toilet block and refuse disposal as a result of the expansion.

 

·         For clarification the Interim Head of Development Management confirmed that the existing conditions for the planning permission in 2014 still existed but there was no restriction on hours.

 

 

A proposal to approve the application had been made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed as follows, subject to the additional conditions related to no access to all external areas, including access to external toilets after 11.00pm, no music on the external roof terrace, provision of a management plan and an appropriate archaeological condition:

 

For - 10

Against - 1

Abstentions - 0

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee

 

1.      grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out at section 9 of the report and to the additional conditions related to the additional conditions related to no access to all external areas, including access to external toilets after 11.00pm, no music on the external roof terrace, provision of a management plan and an appropriate archaeological condition; and

 

2.      delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, subject to consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, to confirm the final wording of the conditions and issue the Decision Notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: