Schedule -
Page 11
Item 1 - 2A
Oxford Road - Page 13
Item 2 -
Land at Warelands Way - Page 25
Minutes:
The Head of Planning submitted plans
deposited as applications to develop land under the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 and reported thereon.
21/0233/VAR
Variation of Condition 3 (opening hours) of application 19/0532/COU for the
roof top terrace to operate between 10:00 and 22:00 hours Monday to Sunday at
2A Oxford Road, Middlesbrough TS5 5DT for Mr and Mr A and A Hynes
The Development Control Manager advised that the above
application had been identified as requiring a site visit by Members of the
Planning and Development Committee.
Accordingly, a site visit had been held on the morning prior to the
meeting.
Full details of the planning application and
the plan status were outlined in the report.
The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed
relevant policies from the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local
Development Framework.
The Development Control
Manager advised that planning permission was
previously granted in November 2019 under application 19/0532/COU for: Part change of use of first floor from
residential (C3) to create a roof terrace/kitchen/store room associated to
ground floor bar (A4) at No.55-59 Roman Road with internal and external
alterations.
In order to limit potential
impacts to the neighbouring residential properties from the use of the roof
terrace, a condition (Condition 3) was imposed to limit the use of the open
terrace to be between the hours of 10:00 and 19:00, as well as for the
provision of acoustic fencing to the rear of the terrace to limit noise
transference.
This application sought to
vary Condition 3 of the approved scheme to allow the roof terrace to be used
beyond the controlled hours, up to 22:00 on all days.
The application site was 2A
Oxford Road, a first floor kitchen/store and roof terrace which was associated
with a ground floor bar at 55 to 59 Roman Road. The property was located within
the Roman Road Local Centre and was within the Linthorpe Conservation Area and
Article 4 designated area. The site was
located at the junction of Oxford Road and Roman Road with commercial units
located to the north and west along Oxford Road.
The application was
supported by a Design and Access Statement, Noise Assessment and Noise
Management Plan.
The Noise Management Plan,
which was submitted by the applicant’s consultant, suggested that no live music
should be played on the roof terrace and that the doors to the roof terrace
would remain closed when it was not in operation.
The submitted noise
assessment indicated that the average noise levels would not increase as a
result of the proposed extended hours relative to the nearest residential
property to the rear of the site, and the vehicle noise was the greatest impact
of noise within the area.
Notwithstanding this, it was considered that the proposal would
introduce a type of noise into a mixed commercial / residential area, at a
point close and adjacent to residential properties which would be particularly
difficult to predict and control and would be doing so at a time of the day
when surrounding residents should be able to expect a greater level of
amenity. The proposal would be likely to
result in intermittent additional disturbance to residential amenity on a basis
sufficiently regular to be considered as being notably harmful to the existing
levels of residential amenity contrary to the NPPF and Local Plan Policy
DC1.
The Council’s Environmental
Health Officer had reviewed the application and not raised any objections to
it. The officer had accepted the
findings of the noise report, but also noted that noise from patrons was
particularly difficult to predict and manage through both licensing regimes and
statutory noise processes because it was noise generated by individuals, as
opposed to particular activity or equipment.
Following consultation, two
objections had been received in relation to the proposed extension of opening
hours. These were predominantly based
around additional comings and goings / traffic and additional noise disturbance,
indicating there was already noise disturbance from the late night
establishments within the area.
The Committee was advised
that in the period since the report had been produced and circulated with the meeting
papers, seven letters of support had been received. Copies were tabled for Members’ perusal. In summary, support related to:
·
The pleasant environment of the establishment and the attractiveness of
the roof terrace;
·
The many events that were held on the roof terrace;
·
The sustainability of the establishment without the roof terrace;
·
The location of the establishment and noise performance to date;
·
The potential for an impact assessment and control measures being put in
place, as opposed to a curfew;
·
The availability of roof terraces in Middlesbrough versus in cities
across the UK;
·
The positive impact of the establishment on the Linthorpe area, its
inhabitants and on existing businesses;
·
The size of the establishment;
·
The maintenance of the historic building; and
·
The impact of other businesses on the area.
Whilst all of the comments
and noise report were noted, Members were advised that the main planning
consideration in this case was whether or not the scheme could be approved
whilst maintaining reasonable residential amenity for the surrounding
residents.
Officers had noted that the
application site was in close proximity to residential properties; there was an
existing ground floor outdoor area and that the roof terrace space added to
that. It was explained that this was a
local centre, not a larger district centre or town or city centre, and
therefore the impact of any developments within it needed to be relative. Reference was made to paragraph 18 of the submitted
report and an excerpt pertaining to the ‘Draft Institute of Acousticians (IOA)
Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Places of Entertainment’. Consideration was given to potential sources
of noise and the impacts that this could have on residents.
Whilst the officers’ view was
that the roof terrace would not result in a constant level of noise that would
adversely affect residential amenity, it was considered that short spikes of
higher noise levels (mainly voices) on an irregular or semi-regular pattern or
occurrence would be sufficient to have an undue impact on residential amenity.
Reference was made to the
comments that had been received from both supporters and objectors, with
reference being made to those citing issues around noise and disturbance
originating from The Linthorpe Hotel, which was located on the opposite side of
the road. Members were advised that the
hotel’s outdoor area was located further away from the road than this
establishment’s, but highlighted that patron noise - particularly in an outdoor
area - was difficult to control.
Planning controls could not deal with the immediate actions of an
individual, so made it difficult to condition or prevent noise disturbance when
relating to a patron.
Given the concerns around
noise, the officer recommendation was to refuse permission. It was felt that the extended use of the roof
terrace was likely to result in noise disturbance at a time of night when
people living in surrounding areas should have expected a reasonable degree of
amenity.
A Member made reference to main town or sporting events,
which could potentially result in raised voices late into the evening, and
queried potential preventative action regarding this. In response, the Development Control Manager
advised that conditions could be imposed, for example; no televisions to be
viewed externally on the premises.
Planning officers did impose conditions such as ‘no live music’ and
similar, and could therefore impose some controls to help prevent this.
A Member made reference to the noise assessment and queried
the reasoning as to why noise levels increased after the roof terrace had
closed. In response, it was explained
that background noise levels were relative to the occurrence of vehicle
noise. A Member queried whether it would
have been possible that the noise was caused by those patrons inside the bar,
with the noise transmitting through an open door. The Agent in attendance confirmed this would
not have been the case.
A Member made reference to operating hours and queried
whether consideration could be given to shorter hours on weekdays and extended
hours on weekends. In response, Members
were advised that it would be reasonable to consider this; if the Committee
were to approve the application subject to conditions, the Applicant could
appeal the conditions if they felt the need to do so.
A Member made reference to the number of original neighbour
consultations (69) and the total number of objections received (2), and
requested clarification on the numbers.
In response, it was confirmed that the numbers, as stated in the report,
were correct.
Two Members supported the view that patrons may become
louder as evenings wore on, and therefore consideration of operating hours
would be beneficial.
The Agent was elected to address the Committee, in support
of the application.
In summary, the Agent advised that:
A Member queried whether there had been any complaints
received from residents prior to the application being made. In response, the Agent advised that no
complaints had been received.
A Member referred to page 17 of the submitted report and
queried a statement that had been made as part of a letter of objection, which indicated
that the owners had been requested to remove the current outside drinking
areas, but this had not been complied with.
In response, the Agent advised that this was not factually correct.
A Member commented that temporary permission would help to
support the Applicant’s statement of case and could be reviewed after a
specified period of time.
A Member queried whether there was a physical barrier
currently in place to separate the outside area from the street. In response, the Agent advised that because
the premises was located in the Linthorpe conservation area, open railings had
been used to fit in with the area’s appearance.
The Agent made reference to the noise report and indicated that this had
predominantly been caused by the flow of traffic coming from the Town Centre
late in the evening.
During the discussion that followed, a Member queried the
possibility of agreeing temporary permission for a six-month period, with full
permission then being granted after that if there were no objections
received. In response, the Development
Control Manager explained that the Committee could determine the application
with a condition based along those lines, but suggested that a longer period of
10-12 months be considered in order for the summer months to be included. In terms of other comments relating to
operating hours, Members were advised that another option would be to permit
longer hours on a weekend and shorter hours during the week. Members discussed these two suggestions.
Prior to the Committee determining the application, the
Legal representative made reference to the Agent’s comments and advised Members
that, regarding the position in relation to Licensing, the position of the
Licensing Committee was irrelevant. It
was not a material planning consideration as regards to the determination of
the application before them.
A Member proposed that permission be granted on the basis of
a 12-month trial to evidence its appropriateness; this was seconded. Before voting, Members discussed the potential
of including a caveat to include shorter operating hours on weekdays and longer
hours on weekends.
The Committee voted on the proposal for temporary permission
to be granted for a 12-month period, which would be monitored. Permanent permission would then need to be
re-applied for after the 12-month period had elapsed.
The Committee agreed that there would be no requirement to
have differential opening hours for weekdays; these would be the same as
weekends.
ORDERED that the application be Approved for the reasons set out in the
report, subject to conditions relating to Time Limit, Approved Plans, Temporary
permission, acoustic fencing and use restrictions.
21/0419/FUL Erection
of building to provide 3 storage units (Use Class B8 storage and distribution)
on Land at Warelands Way, Middlesbrough TS4 2JY for Mr Majid
The Development Control Manager advised that the above
application had been identified as requiring a site visit by Members of the
Planning and Development Committee.
Accordingly, a site visit had been held on the morning prior to the
meeting.
Full details of the planning application and
the plan status were outlined in the report.
The report contained a detailed analysis of the application and analysed
relevant policies from the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local
Development Framework.
The Development Control Manager advised that
planning permission had previously been granted on this site for three almost
identical industrial buildings for class B8 storage and distribution use.
It was explained that since permission had been granted, and
which had been noted during the Committee’s site visit, the owner of the
premises to the rear of the proposed site had erected a fence line, which was
potentially through the applicant’s site.
As a consequence, any potential land ownership disputes would be dealt
with by the relevant bodies.
Members were advised that this application had slightly
reduced the footprint and positioning of the three buildings, which required
that a new planning application be approved.
The application
sought for the erection of the three additional storage units (use class B8 storage and distribution)
on land at Warelands Way within the Warelands Way Industrial Estate. The proposal included the alteration to the
existing private internal roundabout within the estate, which would be amended
to square the northern section of the roundabout to enable access into the
unit. This section of the highway and
the roundabout were within private ownership and were not adopted. The proposal also included the installation
of four additional car parking spaces to the east side of the proposed unit
with the overall loss of four car parking spaces.
The design of the industrial units was considered to be consistent with
the existing unit design with high quality materials. The nature of the proposal being B8 Storage
and Distribution would not result in any notable detrimental impact on the
amenities of the neighbouring units.
The site layout and
associated highway and parking alterations had been designed to provide
adequate highway access and parking provision for the proposed and existing
units within the Industrial Estate. No
highway safety concerns had been raised.
The application was
supported by a Design and Access Statement and a certificate B notice had been
served.
Following consultation, three objections had been received
from residents.
In summary, the objections related to:
·
Highway access to the existing units;
·
Loss of existing car parking for existing units and the resulting impact
on businesses;
·
Intensification on existing parking resulting in congestion;
·
Construction work access issues; and
·
The lack of need for any more industrial units.
The recommendation was for approval
of the application, subject to conditions.
A discussion took place in
relation to the fencing that had been erected to the rear of the existing
buildings. A Member commented that this
was particularly close to a fire escape route and ought to be given further
consideration. The Development Control
Manager advised that this was not a planning issue and would need to be raised
with Cleveland Fire Authority. The
Member indicated that this would be undertaken.
ORDERED that the application be Approved on
Condition for the reasons set out in the report.
Supporting documents: