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 by infilling atrium: installation of extractors to rear: and change of use of ground and basement floors of 12 and 14 Theberton Street to Class A3 restaurant with associated internal alterations

(Planning application number: P2018/3973/LBC)

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 over 7 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 concerns about noise, works are needed to reduce noise and this would be by works to the existing ceilings, noise installation and the insertion of internal walls.
  
  
• Members were advised that the additional extractor fans will be designed to ensure that the noise levels are set at 10DB, which is below 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 the Planning Officer stated that 12/14 Theberton Street would be one unit and had listed building issues which would be addressed by the proposals and it was welcomed that the listed building obligations were restored.
  
  
• In response to questions from Members concerning noise the Planning Officer stated that in regard to the rear extraction units this was felt not to be significant and were not of a significant nature to refuse the application. In terms of loading hours these had been set to limit the harm to neighbours as much as possible. There had been an issue with tables and chairs outside the restaurant and enforcement officers would be monitoring this. In addition, in terms of recycling arrangements needed to be put in place prior to first occupation of the premises.
  
  
• An objector stated that this site had 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 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 placed on the applicant, as outlined in his submission, and that these would be monitored closely.
   
• Reference was made to a previous application by the applicant and a Member enquired how many covers would have been acceptable at that time and that the figures put forward were a false comparison. Theberton Street was a residential street.
  
  
• An objector stated that he resided in Sudd Street and his back garden backed onto the restaurant and he suffered continual noise from the extractor fans and he 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. There had been problems with the site over the previous years and it was acknowledged that this was regrettable and the applicant now wished to regularise the situation and move forward.
  
  
• Members were advised that the proposals will address the concerns and that detailed discussions had taken place with Council officers in order to create a different dining experience in the restaurants into more small, intimate areas more in keeping with other restaurants in the area. He added that he did not feel that Theberton Street was a residential street, and that that part of it was mixed use and dominated by restaurants and an important part of the Angel Town Centre.
  
  
• With regard to the extractor fans, whilst sympathetic to resident’s concerns he stated that the units comply with strict planning restrictions and he did not feel there would be a significant impact. The applicants agent added that the noise levels would not increase and there is a planning condition to provide a noise report to confirm that the noise levels were compliant with regulations.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• A Member referred to the 2008 refusal of the planning application for the site and enquired whether planning permission would have been granted at that time if the whole block’s use would have been for restaurant space.  There is potential for additional noise from the site and the applicant’s statement that Theberton Street is mixed use did not mean that this should be for all restaurants to be in one block.
  
  
• The Member was concerned that the Committee were being asked to agree to a deal with the applicant and resolve their previous concerns and that decision on this item was being shaped by the decision of the Planning Inspectorate. A member was concerned that Committee was being asked to accept the change of use for 14/16 Theberton Street where as if this was a separate application the Committee would have refused it. In response, the Planning Officer reminded Members that the Planning Inspectorate raised no objection to the A3 use of 14/16 Theberton Street.
  
  
• The Legal Adviser reminded the meeting that the Committee should determine the applications on their planning merits, and it was not the conduct of the applicant that should be under consideration.
  
  
• In response to a view by a member that considering residents had suffered 7 years of distress, it was imperative that an effective dispersal policy be put in place, the Planning Officer stated that a dispersal policy would be in place which will be enforced by Licensing officers, and it was not relevant to consideration of this application. In addition the meeting was informed that condition 12 in the planning permission will address this concern.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to Grant Listed Building Consent. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke and carried.

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, listed building consent was granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.