Agenda item

RESOLVED The decision was deferred as Members wanted further clarity on an overlooking from one of the venue windows into a neighbouring property as well as further clarity on paragraph 15 pertaining to the kind of music which is permitted to be played.

3.1      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending granting planning permission for the alteration and conversion of the first and second floors of DirtySouth, 162 Lee High Road SE13 into 4 two bedroom self-contained flats, together with the replacement of the existing windows and installation new windows in the south facing elevation and the provision of bin and cycle storage, subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and to the conditions and informatives in the report:

3.2       The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

· Principle of Development

· Residential Quality

· Urban Design

· Impact on Adjoining Properties

· Transport

· Sustainable Development

· Natural Environment

The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report and the legal agreement that future local residents will be unable to obtain parking permits for the CPZ.

3.4      Members asked for clarity on what was meant by amplified music and live acoustic music and why one is recommended for permission and not the other. The presenting officer explained that the amplified music is controlled by the sound system in the public house, subject to condition 5

3.5      Councillor Smith asked if there were any restriction or conditions attached to the considerations of this application that ensure that people moving into the flats above will be protected from the sound but also will not be able to get the pub closed down on the basis of noise made by the normal operation of the pub. The officer stated that conditions 4 and 5 set out conditions regarding noise prevention windows and internal noise and vibration transferred through the building- this would control the noise coming from the normal operations of the pub. It is also outlined that there is a sound limiter for the sound system which is set at a certain level to ensure there will be no unacceptable impact, so amplified sound would be controlled.

            He stated that it should be noted that this will not necessarily stop neighbours from complaining so does not remove any statutory rights as a citizen- this cannot be controlled.

            The officer wanted it noted that the pub historically was a music venue which ceased in 2012 and was vacant until 2017. It then became a more food-operated pub operation then closed in 2020- so although it was a music venue, the weight that could have been given to that in terms of the application, now not having operated in that manner for 10 years, is quite low.

            Officers stated that a material considerations would be that the pub being a community asset of value, after being asked by Councillor Muldoon. The Legal Representative stated that the weight given to this would be the decision of Members.

3.6      The agent of application then gave their presentation. He said the following of the application:

            The proposal would retain the pub on the ground floor and a viability assessment confirmed the pub would retain a profit as a ground unit if the upper floors were converted to flats.there are minor works to be done to the external part of the building which includes two new windows on the south elevation. Due to concerns raised by public on the windows, the applicant has sought to revise the scheme by ensuring one window on the first floor and two windows on the second, would be fixed shut and obscure glazed. Sound insulation will be installed on the ground floor between the apartments and the pub below. There will be 4 high quality flats in a sustainable area and will retain a viable pub on the ground floor.

            Councillor Paschoud asked what was the objection made to the construction being a community value asset, as an appeal against this was made. The agent stated that this was at the liberty of the applicant and he would not be able to answer to this decision as a consultant.

            The objector then gave a presentation and made the following objection:

            She stated that she believes the conversion is generally a good idea and she welcomes the idea of the external metal staircase being removed. However, she objected to the windows at the first floor level. She stated that the new windows would be looking into her property and this is a loss of privacy for her. She objected only one of the 4 new windows being obscured. She asked if, as a compromise, two windows could be obscured and fixed shut. She aslo stated that the application states there is only a 4m distance between the two properties which is well below the 16 metres recommendation. She lastly pointed out that it is common for customers of the pub to gather outside and make a lot of noise which is of concern to residents.

            Councillor Smith raised concerns about the overlooking into windows and said that it was not clear from the plans what the levelling of the windows was like. The presenting Officer stated that the reason one is obscured and the other is not is in order to provide the balance between protecting the amenity of the neighbouring properties but also providing outlook, ventilation and light for the property. If both windows were obscured there would be no outlook or light for the room in the property. In regards to privacy, he said there were no new windows being put in but they are rather replacing the smaller window and door. The door had access to a metal staircase which had a platform so it was arguable whether the proposal was or was not preferable over what already existed.

            Councillor Muldoon stated he understood the distinction regarding the music played at the venue was about live music and recorded music and asked for clarification to which the Presiding Officer stated that the conditions around noise were produced from the applicants noise impact assessment of music playing from the speakers but did not include live music in the assessment.

3.7       The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting and