Appeal 3375506

The appeal is allowed and condition No 10 is deleted from planning permission Ref 25/00456/U dated 18 July 2025 and replaced by the following condition:

(a) The local planning authority shall be given written notice in advance by the bar operator of the date the use will commence. (b) For the first twelve months after opening, the premises which form the subject of this permission shall not be open to the public, trading, or have members of the public as customers or guests on the premises outside of the following times: 12:00 hours (Midday) to 02:00 hours on Friday and Saturday nights and [name] and 12:00 (Midday) to 00.00 (Midnight) on any other day. (c) Unless a variation to this condition has been approved, after twelve months has expired from the date of opening, the premises which form the subject of this permission shall not be open to the public, trading, or have members of the public as customers or guests on the premises outside of the following times: 12:00 hours (Midday) to 00:00 hours (Midnight) on any day.

The main issue is whether the hours specified in the condition are necessary to protect the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers from unacceptable noise and disturbance.

Planning permission was granted on 18 July 2025 for the conversion of the interior of the [name] listed redundant church, [name], to allow use as a bar with piano. The physical changes and operational arrangements involved have been agreed subject to suitable conditions except for the hours of opening. The exception is condition No. 10 which limits the hours of operation to midnight every day. It is agreed music will end one hour before closing time.

The appellant seeks to extend these operating hours to 02:00 am on Friday and Saturday nights as this is said to be fundamental to the business model for the all seated, relaxed ‘piano bar’ envisaged. This relies on the post-restaurant trade with 70% of business anticipated on Friday and Saturday nights1.

The church lies within the ‘city centre leisure area’ but not the ‘late night activity zone’ as defined by the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2014 (the DMPLP), so Policy DM23 is supportive of hospitality uses but not late-night activities. The church lies within a small churchyard which is directly bordered to the east by a terrace of two storey dwellings with other residential uses nearby. Protecting the occupiers of these properties from undue noise and disturbance is thus a key concern and many have objected to extending the permitted hours.

The appellant points out that Kerry’s, a café/bar also adjacent to the churchyard opens until 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays together with two premises nearby on [address]. These may fall within a different use class or pre-date planning but they do affect the noise environment in the area after midnight and should be taken into account.

The submitted noise impact assessment by [name] suggests an internal noise level of 74dB would prevent external noise levels exceeding existing background levels at the nearest receptor. This is agreed by the Council’s environmental protection officers and planning conditions have been imposed to control amplification equipment, ensure satisfactory noise limiting and to require suitable noise monitoring arrangements. The latter includes monitoring just inside the chancel window, the direction of the nearest receptor.

The Council imposed the midnight condition to be prudent on the basis that it could be varied by a further application when more accurate noise readings could be provided to evidence that internal noise would not harm residential amenity2. An alternative approach in this instance would be to grant temporary permission for the extended hours to enable the use to commence and to establish in practice whether noise requirements can be met during the extended hours. This was the approach taken with Kerry’s when a temporary extension of opening hours was allowed followed by a permanent extension. The appellant is confident that the necessary noise limits can be adhered to during the hours of operation, if so the extended hours can be made permanent by a further application.

The main parties have been consulted about the merits of a temporary permission for extended hours. This is supported by the appellant and opposed by the Council. A period of six months was suggested, but the Council has previously stated that ideally it should be demonstrated that the venue has operated through 1 Emails from the appellant to the Council 3 July 2025 12.52 & 14.15. 2 Committee report paragraph 60. all seasons without issue, and that six months would be the minimum3. Twelve months is therefore necessary in this instance, a period which would also allow the management of the venue to be adapted if required to meet the necessary noise limits. If the trial period is successful, an application for permanent extended hours could be made.

For these reasons the hours specified in the condition are not necessary to protect the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers from unacceptable noise and disturbance and should be extended on Friday and Saturday evenings for a twelve month trial period. This complies with [name] DM2, DM11 and DM23 which seek to prevent the disturbance of neighbouring occupants from noise, require the mitigation of noise with appropriate limiting conditions and aim to control leisure and late night activities in the city centre.

Whilst a precautionary approach to protect the interests of nearby residents can be justified in some circumstances, this is outweighed in this case by the benefits of establishing whether the piano bar can operate for the extended hours required within acceptable noise limits. This could potentially secure an appropriate reuse for one of Norwich’s redundant churches and make a useful contribution to the vitality and economy of the city centre.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed.