If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda item

PL/2021/03958 - 29 & 29A Brown Street, Salisbury, SP1 2AS

Demolition of existing building with retention of existing façade with minor modifications and use of land as a hospitality area (Description revised following changes to the proposed frontage – previously “Demolition of existing building, erection of gates and railings as modification to front facade to facilitate use of land as a hospitality”)

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr W Bennett spoke in objection to the application

Mr E Gray spoke in objection to the application

Ms J Newman spoke in objection to the application

Ms A Newbery (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

 

It was noted that additional information was uploaded as Supplement 2 to the online agenda, which detailed the response from Public Protection.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell presented the application for demolition of existing building with retention of existing façade with minor modifications and use of land as a hospitality area (Description revised following changes to the proposed frontage – previously “Demolition of existing building, erection of gates and railings as modification to front facade to facilitate use of land as a hospitality”).

 

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as demolition of the existing building and impact on the Conservation Area, principle of the proposed use, impact on residential amenity and noise/disturbance.

 

The application had generated Objections from residents. During the presentation, pictures were shown from the site during construction.

 

Live music act allows for live un-amplified music to be played anywhere between 0800 – 2300hrs and live amplified music to be played between 0800 – 2300hrs in workplaces with an audience limit of 500.

 

The application was recommended for approval with conditions as set out in the report.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the demolition of the old building had already taken place after the application being submitted. The applicant had undertaken the process for prior notification, however during that because the site was in the conservation area it was discovered that full application was required.

 

An option when there was a potential breach of planning was to invite a planning application, as this had been received the matter was not passed on to enforcement. 

 

The Live Music Act 2012 allowed for unamplified music anywhere and live music in workplaces, the premises was considered to be a workplace.

 

The Public Protection response made reference to some amended/additional conditions which if wished, could be added by the Committee should it be minded to approve.

 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

 

Some of the main points raised related to the complaints from neighbouring residents in relation to associated noise and food smells permeating into their gardens and homes when the Brown Street outside space was in use.

 

Reference to a diary of logged incidents was referred to and had been circulated independently to Members prior to the meeting by one of the speakers.

 

The impact the venue would have on Charter Court residents with an increased level of noise and disturbance due to the acoustic funnelling at the rear, caused by a gap between buildings. The suggestion of a complete ban on all amplified music, recorded or live was proposed, as was the possibility of the construction of a suitable barrier to be included within the application plans.

Audio clips circulated by email

 

The business needs of the applicant to diversify, following the impact of Covid over the last 18 months.

 

The applicant had been unaware of the issues raised as during previous discussions they had not come to light.

 

The operational side of the premises was explained and included an indoor stage and outside eating space. With occasional jazz brunches once a month. 

 

Local Member Cllr Paul Sample, who was not on the committee, spoke to? the application, noted for openness that his son worked on a Jamaican food store at 29 and 29A brown street.

 

He went on to say that he had tried to keep an open mind but listened to the residents’ concerns, who were mainly elderly and retired. He pointed out on the map where the resident’s properties were in relation to the application site.

 

The residents were in earshot and down wind. For many years the site was a local charity style premises, noting that the demolished building had no architectural merit. The proposals were for a considerable change of use for this substantial new venture.

 

The source of the problem initially was the noise, which he felt was due to the large gap behind the staircase as it acted as a funnel allowing any noise or cooking smells to be channelled into Charter Court.

 

Upon a visit to Charter Court 3 weeks previously the noise was so loud that he felt that the owner would be unable to use his gardens.

 

The Baileys had kept a detailed diary of events. On Sunday 13 June, it was 26 degrees, the football was on and by 4pm football chants and expletives could be heard. The owners had to move to the front bedroom to enable them to get air by opening a window.

 

He also referred to the comments from the General Manager of the Red Lion, who stated that there was no mitigation in place for increased noise disturbance.

 

Planning guidance stated that a high standard of design was required in all developments and should have regard to compatibility to adjoined buildings.

 

There was proof that there was a noise disturbance and fume issue as a result of the application, this was contrary to CP57. Cllr asked that the application be refused or alternatively deferred pending  noise monitoring from the gardens by Environmental Health and the installation of a noise buffering barrier .

 

Cllr Ian McLennan noted his support for mitigation measures and moved the motion of Deferral to enable the applicant to meet with residents of Charter Court to agree mitigation measures, and for Environmental Health to be approached to carry out independent noise monitoring, prior to the application coming back for consideration.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

 

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included the viability of asking Environmental Health to carry out noise monitoring, as usually the onus was on the applicant, to instruct a professional to carry the work out and the findings be assessed by Environmental Health.

 

The period of which any monitoring should be carried out and whether this could include smells as well as noise.

 

The applicant and residents of Charter Court in attendance were asked whether a deferral of this nature to discuss mitigation measures was welcomed. It was confirmed as a welcomed option. 

 

The application with any appropriate additional mitigation measures, would be invited to return to be considered by Committee by its September meeting, or before.

 

The Legal Officer gave advice on the usual process taken by Environmental Services, in that a log should be kept by those affected and presented to Environmental Services, who would then decide if testing was required.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Deferral.

 

It was

 

 

Resolved:

 

That application PL/2021/03958 – 29 & 29a Brown Street, Salisbury, SP1 2AS be  DEFERRED until the September meeting to enable the applicant and nearby residents to discuss and agree acceptable mitigation in consultation with WC Environmental Health, with a view to the application including any appropriate revisions for required works, where practical. 

Supporting documents:

 

Actions

Search

This website