Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth
:
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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
:
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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)
: