Issue - meetings

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

At the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee on 19 August 2020 it was agreed to continue consideration of this application to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to refuse the application.

Motion

To approve planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the report by the Head of Development and Economic Growth.

Moved Councillor George Freeman, seconded Councillor Alastair Redman.

Amendment

Chair I intend to move a motion to refuse the application and in doing so I am taking a different view to that expressed by the Council’s Planning and Environmental Health officers. While I fully respect the professional judgements advanced by them I believe, on this occasion, that I should follow my own view in regard to the weight of consideration to be given in balancing the various material planning considerations.

In doing so I have had regard to the various policy provisions set out in the report of handling and particularly:

SG LDP  BUS1 (C) states that within existing settlements and industry and business areas applications will normally be permitted provided that; (c) In residential locations the proposed development would not erode the residential character of the area or adversely affect local residents through an increase in traffic levels, noise, fumes or hours of operation

SG LDP BUS 1 – Business and Industry Proposals in Existing Settlements and Identified Business and Industry Areas provides additional detail to Policy LDP 5 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Our Economy, proposals for the development of new/extensions to existing businesses in existing settlements areas will normally be permitted subject to certain considerations.

I have also consider the materiality and weight to be given to the various planning considerations and in particular to the Objections. While the application is in accordance with spatial elements of the development plan I consider that the objections received and SG Bad 1 Neighbour Development policy are material planning considerations and I consider they have sufficient weight to merit refusal of the application.

SG Bad 1 Neighbour Development policy objectives state that all applications including those from Pubs have to be considered on their individual merits and will only be permitted when the following criteria have been met (a) There are no unacceptable adverse effects of neighbouring residents. (b) The proposal includes appropriate measures to reduce the impact on amenity as defined by the use classes order (i.e. noise, light, smells.)

Notwithstanding the position adopted by Environmental Health that the proposal is acceptable subject to provision of a noise mitigation plan, I consider that the concerns raise by objectors to the application citing the potential adverse impact upon residential amenity to be of significant material weight indicating that the proposal is likely to exacerbate the effects of a ‘bad neighbour’ development with consequent adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the locale having regard to noise, light pollution and smells. Accordingly, it is my considered opinion that the development is considered likely to give rise to a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents which would be contrary to SG LDP BUS 1 and SG LDP BAD 1 and should be refused.

I note that Environmental Health have no objection, subject to a noise mitigation plan. In this particular instance, there are material considerations which I consider to be of sufficient weight meriting a departure from the Local development plan and these are the amount and relevance of the objections and their relevance and merit in regard to policy. These are material objections which appropriately address the issue of adverse effects on neighbouring residents in accordance with SG Bad 1 neighbour development Policy with particular regard to the additional hour exacerbating the concerns raised in relation to noise, increased light pollution and smells.

Therefore having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, I consider that the objections received and SG Bad 1 Neighbour Development policy are material considerations which have sufficient weight to merit refusal of the application.

Moved Councillor Rory Colville, seconded Councillor Graham Hardie.

A vote was taken by calling the roll and Members voted as follows -

Motion                                                            Amendment

Councillor George Freeman                           Councillor Rory Colville

Councillor David Kinniburgh                           Councillor Mary Jean Devon

Councillor Alistair Redman                             Councillor Audrey Forrest

Councillor Sandy Taylor                                 Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie

                                                                        Councillor Donald MacMillan

                                                                        Councillor Jean Moffat

The Amendment was carried by 6 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the reasons outlined within the amendment by Councillor Rory Colville, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 August 2020, submitted)

Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth

The Area Team Leader for Helensburgh and Lomond spoke to the terms of the report.  The application property is the Clyde Bar located on the seafront within Helensburgh.  In 2017 planning permission was granted for the formation of a beer garden under application 17/01756/PP.  A series of conditions were imposed including Condition 2 limiting the use of the beer garden to 9 pm each day.  The current application seeks to extend the use of the beer garden for an additional hour until 10 pm each day.  A total of 12 objections and 2 representations have been received and consideration has to be given to holding discretionary hearing.  The beer garden is already operating and the Applicant wishes to extend its use by one hour.  The key material objections relate to noise and impact on amenity.  In addressing these issues Environmental Health have been consulted and have indicated that they have had complaints from one neighbour regarding noise, however, no noise diary has been submitted to justify the complaint.  As such they have indicated no objections subject to the submission of a noise mitigation plan.  Subject to this and other safeguarding conditions the proposal is regarded to comply with the Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance and it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

Motion

To agree to the recommendations in the report to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the report.

Moved by Councillor David Kinniburgh, seconded by Councillor George Freeman

Amendment 1

To agree continuation of this application to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to refuse the application.

Moved by Councillor Rory Colville, seconded by Councillor Jean Moffat

Amendment 2

To agree to grant planning permission for a temporary period of 6 months.

Moved by Councillor Graham Archibald Hardie, seconded by Councillor Sandy Taylor

A vote was taken by calling the roll.

Motion                                    Amendment 1                        Amendment 2

Cllr R Currie                            Cllr R Colville                          Cllr G A Hardie

Cllr G Freeman                       Cllr A Forrest                           Cllr S Taylor

Cllr D Kinniburgh                     Cllr R McCuish

Cllr A Redman                                    Cllr J Moffat

On there being an equality of votes for the Motion and Amendment 1, Amendment 2 was dropped and a further vote was taken between the Motion and Amendment 1.

Motion                                    Amendment 1

Cllr R Currie                            Cllr R Colville

Cllr G Freeman                       Cllr A Forrest

Cllr D Kinniburgh                     Cllr G A Hardie

Cllr A Redman                                    Cllr R McCuish

                                                Cllr J Moffat

                                                Cllr S Taylor

Amendment 1 was carried by 6 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly.

Decision

The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to refuse the application.

(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 August 2020, submitted)