Minutes:
77.1 Item 7B
Application DC/20/05586
Proposal Full Planning Application – Erection of 1 single storey dwelling (C3) to the rear of the public house (Sui Generis), with associated access, parking and landscaping (amended scheme to DC/20/02269).
Site Location BRAMFORD – Cock Inn, The Street, Bramford, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP8 4DU
Applicant Punch Partnerships (PML) Limited.
77.2 A short comfort break was taken between 11:38-11:51 after the completion of DC/21/00662 but before the commencement of DC/20/05586.
77.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the reduction in car parking for the pub, the private amenity spaces, the proposed measures to reduce the noise impact, the heritage and highways changes from the previous application, the landscaping plans, and the officer recommendation of approval.
77.4 The Case Officer responded to Member’s questions on issues including: the potential parking conflicts, the response from the Council’s Environmental Health Team, access to the beer garden from the car park, noise survey, and highways assessment.
77.5 The Parish Council representative Caroline Wolton spoke against the application.
77.6 The Parish Council representative responded to Members’ questions on issues including: the asset of community value.
77.7 Members considered the representation from the Objector Albert Horn.
77.8 The Objector responded to Members’ questions on issues such as: noise issues within the village.
77.9 Members considered the representation from the Agent Lauren Parsons.
77.10 The Agent responded to Members’ questions on issues including: t measures to minimise disturbance for future occupants of the dwelling, and parking conflicts.
77.11 Members considered the representation from Councillor James Caston who spoke against the application.
77.12 The Ward Member responded to Members’ questions on issues including: how the general ambience of the pub would be compromised.
77.13 Members debated the application on issues including: the asset of community value, noise generated from the pub and outside ambience, the viability of the pub, and pedestrian access to the dwelling.
77.14 Councillor Timothy Passmore proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The sub-division and loss of part of the beer garden, that is an asset of community value, would likely impact the financial viability and function of the public house by reducing the outdoor dining/drinking area and thereby limiting the number of customers that the public house could serve. This would be detrimental to its valued contribution to the community and local employment. In addition, the development would further enclose the public house leading to potential increased concerns of concentrated noise and disturbance in a decreased beer garden area acting as an unnecessary form of significant restraint on the current business operation and viability. It is considered that the benefits of a single dwelling would not outweigh these material issues. On this basis the proposal is contrary to Policies E6, H17 and the aims of Paragraphs 8, 80 and 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The development would result in an unsafe pedestrian and vehicle access arrangement, create an inappropriate residential/commercial interface and the proposed development would result in an intensification of use of a substandard access failing demonstrate appropriate visibility splays can be achieved and is considered that there is a significant risk to highway safety contrary to policy T10 and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF.
77.15 Councillor Sarah Mansel Seconded the motion.
77.16 By a unanimous vote
77.17 It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The sub-division and loss of part of the beer garden, that is an asset of community value, would likely impact the financial viability and function of the public house by reducing the outdoor dining/drinking area and thereby limiting the number of customers that the public house could serve. This would be detrimental to its valued contribution to the community and local employment. In addition, the development would further enclose the public house leading to potential increased concerns of concentrated noise and disturbance in a decreased beer garden area acting as an unnecessary form of significant restraint on the current business operation and viability. It is considered that the benefits of a single dwelling would not outweigh these material issues. On this basis the proposal is contrary to Policies E6, H17 and the aims of Paragraphs 8, 80 and 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.
2. The development would result in an unsafe pedestrian and vehicle access arrangement, create an inappropriate residential/commercial interface and the proposed development would result in an intensification of use of a substandard access failing demonstrate appropriate visibility splays can be achieved and is considered that there is a significant risk to highway safety contrary to policy T10 and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF.
Supporting documents: