Agenda item

Variation of condition 4 of permitted application 16/00267/FUL to increase number of events from 15 to 25 in total in any calendar year and condition 3 to allow the side garden to be used for wedding ceremonies. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Mrs Carla Mitchell for the variation of condition 4 of permitted application 16/00267/FUL to increase the number of events from 15 to 25 in total in any calendar year and of condition 3 to allow the side garden to be used for wedding ceremonies.

Officers advised that two additional letters had been received from neighbouring residents which made the following comments:

·        Operators already allowed music outside

·        Guests congregated drinking  in the field that was conditioned to be for car parking only

·        The music could still be heard outside, it was not as loud as marquee weddings but it was still there. This goes to prove that the barn was not sound proof or the doors are jammed open.

·        Not audible with the doors/windows closed but it was with them open

·        Loud music was still a problem both at night and during the daytime

·        Noise level report done by ear

·        Deliveries and taxi drivers disturbed neighbours incl. late at night

·        The existing bank of trees to the front reduced noise form the A19 but vehicles travelling along the access could be clearly heard

·        Noise from the A19 was a constant where as noise from music varied

·        Financial implications should not be taken into account

·        Inadequate access with the A19

Officers also advised that the applicant’s sound engineer had provided the following information:

·        Comments had been made in connection with events which were not relevant to this application i.e. camping

·        There had been confusion over the recent Premises Licence Application which was granted with conditions on the 9th November 2017. This was not an application to extend to the hours of an existing Premises Licence, rather a new application to facilitate an increase in the number of events

·        The results of the noise survey demonstrated that the level of impact was negligible, due to both the high standard of noise insulation works undertaken on the barn, and the existing elevated levels of background noise due to the proximity of the A19, which was the dominant source of noise in the locality at all times.

Andrea Broomer, a resident of Deighton House, addressed the committee in objection to the application. She stated that an application to vary conditions 3 and 4 made a mockery of the original planning decision and she advised Members that they were disturbed by noise when weddings took place and increasing the number of events allowed would make this disturbance more frequent. A copy of a letter of objection from Ms Broomer had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

Michael Morris, another local resident, also spoke in objection. He advised Members that as most weddings were held over the summer period, extending the number of potential weddings could mean that weddings could be taking place most weekends in May, June, July and August. He raised concerns that the sound test had been carried out at the quietest wedding held here so was not a true indication of the normal noise levels.

Alan Moore, Senior Acoustics Consultant at Surface Property, appointed by the applicant to carry out a noise survey, spoke in relation to the results of that survey, details of which had been circulated to members in advance of the meeting. He advised Members that the noise survey had been carried out at two locations on the site, and staff and guests were not aware that it was taking place and the results of the survey demonstrated that the level of impact was negligible.

Councillor Mercer, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of noise. She advised Members that it was not possible to contain the sound when doors were opened and people left the building. With up to 200 people attending an event, this could mean up to 50 cars leaving the site at 1am, also creating a noise disturbance. She stated that residents had not received prior notice of events as promised and fireworks had been let off close to animals. Even if noise reduction measures were in place, there would always be some disturbance.

The Council’s Public Protection Manager advised committee members that the issue of fireworks had been addressed and the applicant had agreed not to allow any further fireworks on the site. He acknowledged that previously there had been a number of complaints about the venue which had been dealt with but that no further complaints had been received during the year.

Discussion took place around the playing of live and recorded music. Officers advised that condition 3 required the playing of music to cease by 1am and for the site to be vacated by  staff and guests not staying at the guest house by 1.30am. The premises licence conditions were more restrictive and limited live music until 11pm and the playing of recorded music until 12 midnight. Officers clarified that both the licensing and planning conditions were relevant controls and that the applicant must comply with and abide by both, with each being enforced by different teams.

A letter had been circulated which raised concerns about the operation of the site and one member queried some information contained in this. Officers were unable to comment on the majority of these issues. They however clarified that the granting of the current planning permission had superseded the owner’s use of permitted development rights to hold weddings in a marquee for up to 28 days a year.

Members acknowledged that measures were in place to limit disturbance but felt that it was very difficult to police the conditions and ensure that the doors remained closed so noise did not emanate outside. They noted that noise was created during erection/dismantling of facilities, people gathering outside, and vehicles leaving the site late and this was causing discomfort and anxiety to neighbours. They agreed that intensification of use by increasing the number of ceremonies allowed to take place would increase the number of occasions when local residents would be disturbed therefore affecting residential amenity.

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The proposed additional events would result in an intensification of the use of the site and increased noise and disturbance from guests outside of the venue building and from additional comings and going of guests and delivery vehicles including late at night and during the summer months when nearby residents may expect to be able to keep their windows open. This would result in significant harm to the existing living conditions of neighbouring properties in this rural area contrary to policy GP1 of the Draft Development Control Local Plan 2005 which states that development proposals will be expected to ensure that residents living nearby are not unduly affected by noise or disturbance, National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17 which states that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and paragraph 123 which states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on quality of life as a result of new development.