Agenda item

Variation of conditions 4 and 16 of Planning Permission CC/98/00156/FUL (Change of use to A3 (food and drink) licensed premises) to i) vary condition 4 to allow later last orders up to 11.30pm on Fridays, Saturdays and Bank Holiday Mondays so as to align with the Premises License; and ii)  vary condition 16 to control the timing and volume of amplified music.

Defer for site visit

Having declared a predetermination in this item Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mr Mew introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional comment from the CDC Environmental Protection team and two additional third-party comments objecting to the proposal.

Mr Mew outlined the site location, which was near the city centre and within the Chichester Conservation Area.

Mr Mew showed the existing floor plan and confirmed there would be no material changes to the building. He clarified the amendments to conditions being applied for and how they differed from the existing conditions.

Mr Mew highlighted the number of listed buildings in the area, the building’s proximity to The Prebendal School and other public houses in the area.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Anne Scicluna – Chichester City Council

Mrs Jane Langford – Objector

Canon Simon Holland – Objector

Mr Paul Nichols – Objector

Mr Colin Rhodes – Objector

Mr Alan Green – Objector

Mr Michael Robson – Agent

Cllr James Vivian – CDC member

*The Chairman had used his discretion to merge the objector and supporter allocations on Agenda Items 6 and 7.

Before opening the debate, the Chairman invited Mr Mew and Mr Thomson to comment on some of the concerns raised by the representors.

Addressing concerns raised over the playing of amplified music, Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 3, which set out the proposed details the applicant must adhere to if they were to play such music at the venue.

Addressing concerns of a ‘dancefloor;’ Mr Mew confirmed the term had been referenced in some of the application papers, however, he assured the Committee this did not mean the venue was a night club nor did it mean it could become a nightclub.

Responding to a noise assessment prepared by local residents, Mr Thomson confirmed that officers had considered the report. However, the report had misinterpreted information and did not use the correct parameters for noise assessment associated with this type of establishment.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew reiterated the building was not a nightclub.

Mr Mew clarified Condition 16 of the existing application was enforceable, he informed the Committee the enforcement team had served a notice on the applicant; however, this was currently being held in abeyance whilst the submitted application is determined. The proposed condition 3 offered a more robust approach to managing the impact of music played at the venue, in officer opinion the amendment would still conserve the character and setting of heritage assets within the location.

On the matter of Anti-Social Behaviour; Mr Mew drew attention to comments received from Sussex Police (paragraph 6.2, page 111). He acknowledged there had been some sensitivity and had followed up initial comments up with the Sussex Police Licensing officer who confirmed there were no current issues with the pub and did not object to the hours being brought in line with the hours permitted in the premises licence.

Responding to whether the permitted noise limit could be made lower than 80 decibels; Mr Thomson explained the detailed work undertaken by officers to establish 80 decibels as the acceptable limit proposed in Condition 3. Officers had undertaken site visits, including a site visit on 28 April 2023 between 10 and 11.30pm to measure noise and assess the effectiveness of a limiter which had been fitted to the sound equipment in the building and would prevent equipment from achieving any level higher 80decibels. He referred to the national guidance and planning policy on noise that had been considered as part of the investigation work.

Regarding The Prebendal School; Mr Thomson informed the Committee that officers had stood outside the school in the evening to measure the impact of noise from the impact. Officers recorded a reading of 48 decibels, for context Mr Thomson explained a bus which passed recorded a reading of 60 decibels.

Mr Thomson confirmed that the noise limiter was now in place at the venue and since installation there had been no complaints.

Regarding limiting base frequency; Mr Thomson confirmed different levels could be set for different frequencies of sound. When officers had undertaken testing, base noise had been the main concern, through testing the 80-decibel limit was found to be an acceptable limit.

Ms Golding advised the Committee that the conditions could not be voted on separately, they would have to vote on the application in front of them.

Ms Golding provided further clarification regarding condition 16. She confirmed the condition was enforceable, however, a condition must also be reasonable, and the Committee must consider whether the condition was still reasonable, the amendment proposed was reasonable.

Following discussion, Cllr Burton proposed the application be deferred for a site visit at an appropriate time of day and to allow further negotiation with the applicant on Condition 3.

Cllr Cross seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of Cllr Burton’s proposal to defer for a site visit.

Resolved; defer for a site visit, for the reasons stated above.