Agenda item

Reinstatement and installation of walls at basement and ground floor levels to separate 14 and 16 Theberton Street, 10 and 12 Theberton Street and partially separate 12 and 14 Theberton Street: install a ground floor at rear of 12 and 14 Theberton Street by infilling atrium: installation of extractors to rear, and change of use of ground and basement floors of 12 and 14 Theberton Street at Class A3 restaurant with associated internal alterations

( Planning Application Ref: no: PL2018/3913/FUL)

Discussion with this application was considered in conjunction with Item B2, although votes with regard to its recommendation was taken separately. In the discussion the following points were made:

• The Planning Officer reminded members that the application under consideration had been previously refused, however the revised scheme had incorporated a number of amendments.
  
  
• Members were informed of the significant history relating to this site and included an enforcement action, an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which had been refused, and importantly planning breaches dating back numerous years
  
  
• The Planning Officer informed members that the revised scheme had  reduced the number of covers from 181 to 150, and importantly the large space had been partitioned so that the space in the restaurants would be more intimate and would be in keeping with other restaurants in the area. This reduced space will reduce the ability for the premises to hold large  banqueting events.
  
  

• With regard to noise concerns, the meeting was advised that applicant has submitted an updated Acoustic Report. In addition Public Protection had been consulted about the proposal and are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions providing limits to operational noise of the extractor flues, covering permitted hours, operating hours and timers on flues and internal insulation details.
  
  
• Members were advised that the additional extractor fans will be designed to ensure that the noise levels are set 10DB below current background sound levels, which is 5DB lower than the Council’s the current expected level. There are additional conditions imposed on the applicant to ensure compliance with the measures proposed.
  
  
• In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Officer stated that 12/14 Theberton Street would be one unit and included the beneficial reinstatement of internal featuress.

• In response to Members concerns about the noise levels, the Planning Officer stated that in regard to the rear extraction units officers were of the view that the impact is not such that the application should be refused. In terms of loading hours, time restrictions have been imposed so as to limit any harm to neighbours as much as possible.
  
  
• With regard the high number of tables and chairs outside the restaurant, the meeting was advised that this would require a licence. Planning Enforcement officers would be monitoring the site to ensure compliance with any permission. In addition, the Planning Officer informed the meeting that in terms of recycling, arrangements would need to be put in place prior to first occupation of the premises.
  
  
• An objector stated that this site had an unfortunate history where the owner had ‘flouted’ planning law, carried out the development unlawfully over a 7 year period. The owner had also failed to comply with enforcement notices and was taken to the Crown Court over this where he pleaded guilty.
  
  
• An objector further stated that they objected to the fact that there would be an 80 cover restaurant and this could cause large groups of diners to be present causing noise/inconvenience to residents. In the event of planning permission being granted then this should be for four separate restaurants and not for enlarged premises at 12/14 Theberton Street and that the issue of partitioning should be dealt with separately.
  
  
• An objector added that given the owners previous history they were sceptical of the application. The Planning Officer responded that given the previous history of the site there were a number of conditions recommended on the application, as outlined in the report, and that these would be monitored closely.
  
  
• An objector stated that he suffered continual noise from the extractor fans and  was unable to sit in his garden or his terrace, and the noise could also be heard with the windows closed. The fans were on 24 hours per day and he did not feel this necessary and exacerbated problems for residents, and that the 10DB limit should be reduced and that residents had not been consulted in relation to the additional extraction fans.
  
  
• The applicant’s agent stated that the owner had invested heavily in the site and the borough and that this was a long standing restaurant serving the community. He acknowledged the problems with the site in previous years, noting that this was regrettable, however the applicant now wished to regularise the situation and move forward.
  
  
• The agent informed Members that the aim of the application is to address all the concerns highlighted in the report, that detailed discussions had taken place with Planning officers in order to create a different dining experience in the restaurants, produce small, intimate dining areas, more in keeping with other restaurants in the area.
  
  
• In response to an objector describing the area as solely residential, the agent informed the meeting that part of Theberton Street is not only mixed use and dominated by restaurants but remains an important part of the Angel Town Centre.
  
  
• With regard to issues and concerns as a result of the extractor fans, the agent stated that the units will comply with strict planning restrictions and would not have any significant impact on the amenity of neighbours. The applicants agent added that noise levels would be controlled and a planning condition will ensure that this is adhered to. In addition a noise report has been submitted with application.
  
  
• A Member stated that she did not feel that the objectors were making unreasonable demands and that she felt that the issues raised in relation to noise, the number of restaurants and the 24 hour extractor fans were reasonable ones. The Chair stated that whilst recognising these concerns there were a number of conditions placed on the applicant to ensure compliance and it would be for Council officers to ensure compliance is taking place.
  
  
• In response to the issue of the change of use for 14/16 Theberton Street and whether if this was a separate application the Committee may have been minded to refuse it, the Planning Officer reminded members that the Planning Inspectorate had raised no objection to the A3 use of 14/16 Theberton Street.
  
  
• In response to a question, the Legal Adviser reminded members that the Committee should determine applications on their planning merits, and that the conduct of the applicant is not under consideration.
  
  
• A Member expressed the view that residents had suffered 7 years of distress and that there needed to be an effective dispersal policy in operation. It was stated that a dispersal policy would be in place, enforced by Licensing officers, and it was not felt relevant to consideration of this application. In response, the meeting was informed that condition 12 in the report will address this issue.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report, subject to the conditions outlined