Agenda item

Registered Plan No.: 14/00291/FULL

Proposal: Installation of extract louvres on Aldersgate Street elevation and rear elevation to external courtyard area; installation of condenser units within rear courtyard area associated with the use of unit 3 for restaurant (A3) use, and associated relocation of cycle rack.

Daniel James spoke against the application and the Director of Built Environment read a statement against the application from Jono Collins, who was unable to attend this meeting on its revised date. Barnaby Collins was heard in reply.

During discussion, reference was made to the following:

·         the likely level of noise disruption to local residents, both in terms of level of noise and types of noise;

·         whether there was sufficient room for an appropriate fire evacuation route;

·         the proposed locations for the air intake and extraction of the building;

·         the need for conditions to be placed on any operating hours for the extraction unit;

A motion was put by Alex Bain-Stewart and seconded by David Bradshaw that a condition be added to the recommendation within the report that the operating hours for the extraction unit be limited between 12am and 7am.

Upon being put to vote, the motion was carried –

Vote: 9 in favour, 0 against.

Members then put the question of the planning permission, including the additional condition, to vote, and planning permission was refused –

Vote: 5 in favour, 7 against, 1 abstention.

RESOLVED – That Planning permission be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on residential amenity. Specifically, the Committee rejected the proposals because, notwithstanding the favourable technical evaluation contained in the report of the air conditioning plant and the noise and odour control measures, the Committee considers that there is a high probability of adverse impacts on neighbouring residents and this risk should not be accepted. This view was bolstered by:

·         the applicant’s representative not being able to answer many of the questions put to him by the Committee;

·         alternative locations being available for this equipment which would overcome this risk, which had not been shown to be unfeasible; and

·         there being other uses for this property with valid planning permissions.