Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Mr Salvatore Amico addressed the Committee against the application.  Mr Steve Haslam spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0076/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor P Moore commented that the pub’s play area was situated some 50 metres back from the pub so any patrons of the pub would suffer minimal disturbance.  She stated however, that the play equipment was substantially taller than the fence between the pub garden and nearby dwellings.

Councillor P Moore emphasised that children standing on play equipment platforms would easily be able to see over the fences in neighbouring gardens, thereby compromising the privacy of residents enjoying their gardens during the summer months.

Councillor P Moore further stated that no amount of trees or foliage would prevent noise nuisance for neighbours.  She queried what would be the outcome if, after a period of 3 months, the conditions on this application had not been adhered to.

Councillor Mrs R Cheswright stated that the balance was wrong between the provision of a pub or a children’s play area.  Councillor N Symonds commented on the likely noise impact resulting from this application.  Councillor G Lawrence queried whether it would be realistic for Officers to effectively police the hours of use of the play equipment.

Councillor M Tindale, as the local ward Member, stated that this application had caused significant controversy for sometime with strong opinions for and against the application.  He referred to the importance of ensuring the survival of rural village pubs where possible, whilst also protecting the character of rural areas.

Councillor M Tindale commented that Officers had successfully captured the balance of the issues relevant to this application, although he was surprised with the recommendation to grant planning permission.  He emphasised the key issue remained the size and scale of the play equipment and this had not changed since the previous application.  Councillor M Tindale stressed that the concessions from the applicant since the previous application had been very modest. 

Councillor M Tindale further commented on whether the application could be deferred so that genuine concessions could be made by the applicant regarding the size and scale of the play equipment.  He stated that an approval at this stage would be wholly inappropriate, although he did not want to see the pub close, if a refusal resulted in a lost appeal and enforcement action.

The Director stated that the applicant had confirmed that the use of the equipment would cease at 8.30 pm.  Members were advised that Officers had acknowledged the harm to the rural area and the potential for noise and disturbance that could result from this application.  Officers had tried to strike a balance of the issues when completing the report.

The Director stated that a key issue was the viability of the public house.  The applicant had pointed out that a key income for the pub was the summer visitors, whose children frequently used the play equipment on offer.

Officers had judged the application to be acceptable but Members could ultimately make a judgement for themselves regarding the balance of issues.  The Director concluded that a decision to defer the application to seek additional mitigation measures would be appropriate.

Councillor D Andrews commented that supporting rural pubs was important, but he was concerned that a number of residents would be alienated by this application and there were 4 or 5 properties that were actually closer to the play equipment that the pub itself.

Councillor D Andrews acknowledged that the play area was well laid out and of high quality.  He stated however, that the play equipment was out of scale with the location and would attract far too much attention and create too much noise.

Councillor A Burlton commented on whether the application could be deferred so that Officers could negotiate with the applicant for a lower height for the play equipment.  He stated that if no negotiation was possible then the application should be refused.  Councillors S Bull, G Jones and T Page all addressed the Committee in support of a deferral of the application.

The Director stated that, as this was a retrospective application, any deferral should be subject to a specific timescale and Officers were of the opinion that 3 months would be a reasonable time period.

In response to a query from Councillor D Andrews, the Director stressed that, if the amended scheme remained unacceptable to Members after the deferral period, then they would be able to refuse the application and, if necessary, enforcement action could follow in the usual manner.

Councillor A Burlton proposed and Councillor M Newman seconded, a motion that application 3/12/0076/FP be deferred to enable the Applicant to come forward with a revised scheme that reduced the scale and extent of the play equipment and the revised scheme should be submitted to the 20 July 2012.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0076/FP, planning permission be deferred to enable the Applicant to come forward with a revised scheme that reduced the scale and extent of the play equipment and the revised scheme should be submitted by the 20 July 2012.