Date of Expiry of Statutory Period : 14 December 2010

ITEM NO: Location: Cutlers House, Lumen Road, Royston, SG8 7AG 1

Applicant: Messrs Willis & Piggott

Proposal: Proposed change of use to snooker hall for a temporary period of 12 months (as amended by email and plan received 21.12.10 and as amplified by noise management plan received 22.03.11).

Ref.No: 10/02617/ 1

Officer: Naomi Reynard

Date of expiry of statutory period : 14 December 2010

Reason for Delay

Referral to committee

Reason for Referral to Committee

Councillor Inwood has 'called in' the application following Royston Town Council's statement of support.

1.0 Relevant History

1.1 Conditional planning permission was granted on 18th April 1985 for change of use from factory to snooker club (1/423/85(322)).

1.2 Planning permission was refused on 23rd May 1985 for change of use of engineering works and gas holder site to postal sorting office and 36 parking spaces (1/466/85(346)).

1.3 Standard conditional planning permission was granted on 28th June 2000 for change of use of building from snooker club to purposes within use classes B1 and/or B8 (light industry and storage) (00/00627/1).

1.4 A planning application was made in July 2010 for change of use from storage and distribution (Use Class B1) to snooker hall (Use Class D2) and/or B1 business uses. A split decision was made; conditional planning permission was granted for the B1 business use and planning permission for the snooker hall was refused for the following reasons:

1. Given the nature of the use and the opening hours, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

2. The need to provide sufficient parking to serve the proposed use, has resulted in the provision of parking spaces which would not be practical or usable. Consequently, the parking provided is also less than would be expected for the proposed use. This deficiency could result in on-street parking which could, in turn, give rise to highway safety and convenience issues, particularly near the junction. As such the proposal would be contrary to NHDC Supplementary Planning Document: Vehicle Parking Provision at New Development.

1.5 This current application was referred to the Planning Control Committee in January 2011 with a recommendation for refusal on the grounds that given the nature of the use and the opening hours, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area. The Planning Control Committee requested that the application be deferred pending further discussions with the applicant regarding opening hours and noise control and further advice from Environmental Health regarding the issues of noise.

2.0 Policies

2.1 Business Uses (B1 Use Class) North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations

2.2 Employment Provision North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations

2.3 Leisure Uses North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations

2.4 Car Parking Standards North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No.2 with Alterations

2.5 Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

2.6 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control

2.7 NHDC Supplementary Planning Document: Vehicle Parking Provision at New Development

3.0 Representations

3.1 Town Council - "Royston Town Council members fully supported this application for temporary change of use to a snooker hall. The temporary usage will allow time for any noise issues to be monitored to see if there is an adverse impact on the residents in the area. Members feel this facility is greatly needed to serve the community of Royston."

3.2 Environmental Protection (Contaminated Land) - No objections - recommended informatives.

3.3 Environmental Health - Recommended refusal.

3.4 Highways Authority - Does not wish to restrict the grant of planning permission.

3.5 Representation received on 23rd November 2010 from the neighbour at 21 Mill Road with the following concerns:  Hours of operation are too late in a residential area, particularly as the building is very close to a residential area with elderly residents. A more satisfactory time to finish operations would be 21:00 and there should be at least one day during the weekend when there are no operations and the use should not operate on bank holidays.  Noise and disturbance from outside at the end of the evening.  Noise from cars.  Possible damage to boundary fence by cars - suggested conditions to avoid this.  Not much has changed in the current application with regard to the nature of the activity, the opening hours, and the general disturbance and possible levels of nuisance which could be generated.  The dance school at 21a is mentioned in the application, but the planning permission for this was granted with a condition that there should be no operations after 21:00 hours in the evening and none on a Sunday or on Bank Holidays.  The car parking is still not practical, in particular the 5 spaces in tandem and the 4 spaces at the rear, especially if need to evacuate the premises or for any other emergency.  Already suffer from noise of cars and people late at night from the patrons of the British Legion Club in Mill Road, who park their cars on the front apron of the application building, if permission is granted these same patrons will be displaced to the roadways in the area, causing nuisance to residents and congestion.  The proposed change of use will cause harm to residential amenity.

3.6 Further letter received on 11th February 2011 from the neighbour at 21 Mill Road with the following comments and concerns, after he was consulted on the Noise Management Plan:  In the conclusion his address to the planning committee on 13th January 2011 the occupier expressed concerns over the potential for activities outside the premises, related to the use of the building, and which may cause disturbance to local residents. Also indicated that if a fair compromise could be achieved on the days, hours and parking arrangements, then would withdraw the objection to the proposal.  In the first and amended submission the applicants suggested that they would be willing to consider changes to the proposed days and hours of operation. However, in the letter from the agent received 20th January 2011 the applicants clearly stated that the hours of operation cannot be reduced for business reasons. Queried which of the statements is correct.  The days of operation has also not been addressed. The applicants are looking for permission to operate every day of the week including Bank Holidays.  The parking concerns have not been addressed and the parking plan is not practical.  The Noise Management Plan appears to be fair and if properly managed should reduce the loss of amenity to the local residents.  Not fundamentally objecting to the use of the snooker hall as a business, but concerned that there are some inconsistencies in the applications which should be addressed.

4.0 Planning Considerations

4.1 Site & Surroundings

4.1.1 The property is an industrial unit on the west side of Lumen Road near the junction with Mill Road. The property is bounded on the north and west by residential properties.

4.2 Proposal

4.2.1 The proposal is for the change of use from storage and distribution (Use Class B8) to a snooker hall (Use Class D2). This application follows a previous application for a permanent change of use to snooker hall and/or B1 use (10/01658/1). A split decision was made on the previous application. Planning permission was refused for the change of use to snooker hall on the grounds that given the nature of the use and the opening hours, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area. A second reason for refusal was on the grounds of inadequate parking provision. Planning permission was granted for the change of use to B1 subject to conditions.

4.2.2 The differences between this submission and the previous application are that the proposal is for a temporary permission for 12 months (rather than a permanent permission) and a revised parking layout is proposed. The temporary permission is proposed from commencement of the use, not from occupation, as there would be a fit-out period. In addition this application is only for change of use to a snooker hall (Use Class D2), (as they already have planning permission for change of use to B1 Business Use, so have removed this element from the description). The D2 Use Class also includes uses such as a cinema, concert hall, bingo hall, dance hall, swimming bath, skating rink and gymnasium. Although this application is specifically for change of use to snooker hall, not a general D2 use. The agent confirmed that the intention is that bar facilities will be provided within the snooker centre. In my view the proposed bar would be ancillary to the main use as a snooker hall.

4.2.3 This application was referred to the Planning Control Committee on 13th January 2011 with a recommendation for refusal on the grounds that given the nature of the use and the opening hours, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area. The Planning Control Committee requested that the application be deferred for further consideration.

4.2.4 The application has not been amended, however a Noise Management Plan and further information has been submitted.

4.3 Key Issues

4.3.1 The committee deferred this application pending further discussions with the applicant regarding opening hours and noise control and further advice from Environmental Health regarding the issues of noise. I will address these points in this report. I will not repeat the discussion set out in the previous report, but will make reference to it where appropriate. The previous committee report is attached in Appendix 1. The fundamental issue in the determination of this application is whether the additional information provided by the applicant satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Team on the proposed scheme.

4.3.2 Since the previous application was considered at Planning Control Committee the agent has submitted a letter with some further information and a Noise Management Plan. An amended version of the Noise Management Plan can be found in Appendix 2.

4.3.3 Environmental Protection Officers met one of the applicants on site and discussed the proposed change of use. They also viewed the site from the adjacent property, 19 Mill Road. The Environmental Protection Officer also met the occupier of 21 Mill Road in the office to discuss his concerns. The Environmental Protection Officer also considered the Noise Management Plan that had been submitted by the agent.

4.3.4 Following their site visit the Environmental Health Officer set out their comments and concerns and I sent these to the agent. He then submitted a revised Noise Management Plan, which is attached in Appendix 2. I consulted the neighbour on the revised Noise Management Plan and his comments are set out in paragraph 3.6 above.

4.3.5 The main issue is concerning potential noise associated with the external areas of the premises, namely the car park and proposed smoking area. As set out in paragraph 4.3.8 of the previous committee report, it is not noise breakout from the venue, but rather the arrival and departure of vehicles (including radios, engine noise, doors slamming), the proposed traffic route arrangement along the boundaries of numbers 21 and 19 Mill Road, use of the smoking area and the ingress and egress from the building of the anticipated numbers of patrons that all have the potential to cause unreasonable levels of disturbance in close proximity to residential properties.

4.3.6 Following discussions the Noise Management Plan was amended. This revised plan is attached in Appendix 2. The Noise Management Plan has included a few points which relate to the advice that the Environmental Protection Officer gave on site. These are that the hours and days of deliveries to the premises would be restricted and a taxi collection/drop off point would be identified on site allowing taxis to turn at the head of the cul de sac and drop passengers adjacent to the entrance on Lumen Road without having to enter the site. The Noise Management Plan also proposes a zero tolerance management regime, a screened and covered smoking area, that after 10pm people leaving the club must do so via the rear exit, staff will park to the rear, CCTV will be used and signs will be displayed to set out the restrictions.

4.3.7 The agent has said that the staff car parking could be located anywhere within the site and they would be willing to locate the spaces wherever the Local Planning Authority specifies. They consider that it would be best to have the staff car parking located in the position shown (tandem spaces to the north west of the building in between 19 and 21 Mill Road) to avoid that area falling into general use with potential more ‘comings and goings’. The Environmental Health Officer recognises the logic behind this, that it is easier to manage staff noise than customer noise. However, he commented that staff would be the last to leave the site so the latest time which noise may be audible would be in this area, nearest to the residents.

4.3.8 The Environmental Protection Officer raised concern that the smoking area is still proposed at the rear of the premises, as it would be opposite 19 Mill Road. He had suggested to the applicant that the entrance be relocated to the south east side of the building facing Lumen Road and the smoking shelter also be sited here. However, I understand that the applicant is not keen to bear the cost of the repositioning of the entrance as they are only seeking a temporary approval.

4.3.9 The agent has made the following observations to support the application:

“It should be noted that this will be a private members club so those who do not abide by the club rules can be expelled. Snooker is also a very quiet activity and play is generally conducted in silence as it demands concentration. Those that are there are there for the plan and in many respects the social aspects are secondary.”

I note the points made, however, as set out in paragraph 4.3.6 above, it is the external noise that is the issue, rather than internal noise.

4.3.10 The key problem is that the agent has confirmed that the applicant cannot vary the days or hours of operation because that would render the business incapable of operating on a sound financial basis. He has stated that the hours of operation proposed as part of the application cannot be reduced for two reasons:

1. “League play is necessary as an integral part of the overall operation. The number of games to be played in order to complete league matches during the evening means a starting time of 7.30pm. This, of necessity means finishing that last game at around 10.30pm. 2. If the hours in the evening were reduced this would have an adverse impact on the viability of the business to the extent that it could not be run at a profit and would therefore be unable to trade.”

The proposed opening hours are 10am - 11pm Monday to Thursday, 10am – 11.30pm Friday and Saturday and 10am to 10.30pm Sundays and Bank Holidays. Given that the applicant has not offered up any changes to the hours and days of opening, and in light of the other concerns discussed above, the Environmental Protection Officer has recommended refusal on the same grounds as before. He has concluded that if temporary planning permission were to be granted with the requested hours, he would consider it likely that a noise nuisance could occur especially after 9pm when all other businesses in the area are closed. Furthermore, if noise complaints were received about activities in the external areas of the premises there would be no easy way to deal with them in the same way if noise was generated internally.

4.3.11 The neighbour at 21 Mill Road was consulted on the original Noise Management Plan. His concerns are set out in paragraph 3.6 above and have been discussed in the comments above. I did not consider it necessary to re-consult him on the amended Noise Management Plan as the changes were relatively minor. I note that the neighbour still has concerns in relation to parking, however, as stated in paragraph 4.3.12 of the previous committee report it is considered that the parking spaces now shown would be practical and usable. As such I do not consider that there are any sustainable objections to raise to the proposal on highway grounds.

4.3.12 It may be useful to note the differences in what can be considered as part of planning and licensing applications. As part of a licensing application the potential public nuisance would be assessed, whereas the planning application stage provides the opportunity to consider loss of amenity (disturbance to one person or more, which could be occasional). The licensable activities that they would need to apply for would all be internal, which is easier to control than external activities giving rise to noise, as set out above.

4.3.13 The agent has provided some further justification for the proposed change if use. He has commented that the site operated as a snooker club for 16 years to their knowledge without objection or complaint from neighbours. The Environmental Protection Officer has checked their records and has confirmed that no complaints were received when the premises was used as a snooker club. However, as set out in paragraph 4.3.9 of my previous report since 1985 (when the previous planning permission was granted for a snooker club) the smoking ban has been introduced. The smoking ban now dictates that people would have to smoke outside and this has the potential to cause a noise nuisance. As set out above it is much more difficult to control outside noise than internal noise.

4.3.14 The agent has provided the following further justification for the proposed change of use:

“I have been informed that the only venue which currently offers snooker in Royston is on the market and that it is unlikely to be utilised for the purpose in the future as a result of the incompatibility and cost associated with the premises.”

Whilst I am sympathetic to the need for a venue for a snooker hall in Royston, in my view this cannot outweigh the potential loss of amenity of the neighbouring properties.

4.3.15 As stated in paragraph 4.4.1 of the previous report, I do not consider that the proposal for the use to be operated for a temporary period would be acceptable, as the proposed use would have the potential to cause nuisance/loss of residential amenity from day of first use.

4.4 Conclusion

4.4.1 In conclusion, I do not consider that the Noise Management Plan and the other information submitted adequately addresses the concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Officer, particularly in relation to external noise. The hours and days of use have not been changed and it appears that there is no prospect that they could be amended. Given the recommendation from the Environmental Protection Officer I recommend that planning permission be refused for the change of use to snooker hall on the grounds that given the nature of the use and the opening hours, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area.

5.0 Legal Implications

5.1 In making decisions on applications submitted under the Town and Country Planning legislation, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. The decision must be in accordance with the plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. Where the decision is to refuse or restrictive conditions are attached, the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision.

6.0 Recommendation

6.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Given the nature of the proposal and the opening hours requested, the noise and general disturbance associated with the use would be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of nuisance in what is a predominantly residential area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 23: Planning and Pollution Control.