Agenda item

Railway Tavern, 5 Tamworth Road, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 2PW

Railway Tavern, 5 Tamworth Road, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 2PW

Officer’s recommendation: Permit subject to conditions

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor M Wyatt left the meeting at this point and did not return.

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor D Bigby removed himself from the Committee to join the public gallery prior to being invited to speak as Ward Member.  Councillor T Eynon joined the Committee as his substitute and had no interests to declare.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr L Henson, objector, addressed the Committee.  He informed Members that the neighbours whose gardens immediately surround the site, enjoyed the tranquil area which was a hive of activity for wildlife.  Concerns were raised that this would be ruined by the proposals. It was stated that the public house stopped using the current outside space when the noise survey was being undertaken and therefore the results were not reliable.  The lack of engagement between the residents and the landlord was raised and some concerns were had in relation to the intention to remove hedgerows.  Further concerns were raised in relation to light pollution, lack of control over usage numbers and noise, lack of adequate fire escape and increase in vehicles to the site.  Members were urged to refuse the application.

Mr K Buckby, supporter, addressed the Committee.  It was confirmed that the applicant had worked closely with Planning Officers in developing the application and reminded Members that no objections had been received from the Highway Authority or Environmental Protection.  It was confirmed that there was no intention for outside music, screens or serving of food and Members were reminded of the proposed acoustic fence to block noise.  It was also reported that lighting level would be low and turned off when the outside space would be closed. The proposals were intended for a more comfortable experience for customers and there had been no objections from regular users of the premises.  Members were urged to permit the application.

Councillor D Bigby, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  Members were reminded of Planning Policy D2 in relation to amenity impact and it was suggested that the application be rejected for this reason.  Concerns were raised regarding the acoustic report, which was commissioned by the applicant and therefore he felt was likely to reflect their needs, as the results did not replicate the usual noise from a public house garden.  He was disappointed that the acoustic fence, which was originally proposed as a hight of 2.4m had been reduced to 1.8m, this would mean that people could easily look over this fence into neighbours’ gardens. 

Officers reminded Members that there were no objections from the Environmental Protection Team due to the measures proposed by the applicant to reduce noise levels.  It was also noted that there was more than one scenario tested in the acoustic survey (including hypothetical maximum and unlikely worst case scenarios) and that the noise survey submitted by the applicant confirmed there was no acoustic requirement for proposed fencing to be higher than 1.8m. Additionally, whilst amended plans had been received to reduce the height of acoustic fencing following comments from Environmental Protection, fencing was also added to an additional boundary (western boundary). Environmental Protection raised no objections to the updated boundary treatments.  Advice was also given on the use of Policy D2 as a reason for refusal. 

In determining the application, Members raised their own concerns regarding the inevitable noise that would be generated from the use of the garden space and the impact it would have on the neighbours.  Other concerns were also raised regarding the ability to easily look over the proposed 1.8m acoustic fence.  Following a full discussion, it was proposed that officer’s recommendations be approved with the additional conditions that the acoustic fence be increased to a height of  2m and additional landscaping be used to assist with the noise reduction.  It was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor T Eynon.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The officer’s recommendation be approved with additional conditions in relation to the height of the acoustic fence to be increased to 2m and additional landscaping to assist with noise reduction.