Appeal 6000948

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a three storey building at the end of a row of terraces containing office, retail and service units at ground floor and residential accommodation above. The appeal building itself includes a vacant ground floor unit, formerly in retail use, and a flat on the upper floors accessed via a separate side entrance. Roof canopies provide covered external areas to the frontages of these units. The site lies within a designated Local Centre, where parades of commercial units line a short section of [address]. Beyond this, the surrounding area is predominantly residential, with the nearest dwellings including properties along [address] to the rear, Numbers 217 and [address] opposite the appeal site, and existing flats on upper levels along [address].

The proposal would fail to accord with the [name], Restaurants, Cafes and Drinking Establishments Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (SPD). It advises that proposed drinking establishments should be at least 40 metres away from the main elevation of a dwellinghouse. However, the SPD is not policy, and the 40 metre distance is therefore a guide as to what is likely to be an acceptable gap.

The Acoustic Assessment (AA) proposes mitigation measures to insulate and minimise noise transmission between the ground floor and the existing flat above. I have nothing compelling before me to suggest that these measures would not be sufficient in ensuring the living conditions of the occupiers of the flat above would not be adversely affected by internal noise generated from the proposed use. Furthermore, the AA confirms that any internal noise would be adequately contained within the building envelope, with predicted noise breakout to be below existing background sound levels.

Nonetheless, the proposal would introduce a covered outdoor seating area, which has not existed previously and would enable patrons to gather, converse and drink outdoors. Whilst modest in size, the proposed plan indicates it would contain two picnic style tables which could accommodate multiple people at once, where any raised voices and lively behaviour would be noticeable. The AA states that under a worst case scenario of 10 patrons talking simultaneously within this area, the noise would be below existing ambient levels. However, this conclusion relies on road traffic and the wider acoustic environment along [address] masking the noise levels. Additionally, the proposed use would be open daily until 23:30 hours. During the late evening, road traffic would reduce significantly, making any noise generated within this outdoor space more perceptible to neighbouring occupiers.

The nature of the proposed use, centred on alcohol consumption, also carries a greater risk of potentially disorderly behaviours that may lead to further disruption. Customers arriving and leaving in only small groups would be difficult to enforce in practice and it remains entirely possible for larger groups to visit and make use of the outdoor seating or even congregate standing. These activities would generate increased noise and disturbance that would unacceptably disrupt occupiers of the surrounding residential properties. This harm would be intensified during the warmer months, when dwellings are more likely to have their windows open.

Additionally, the appeal site is located within a parade that predominantly accommodates daytime uses. Whilst there are some restaurants with late opening hours in the area, these are located a distance away and are concentrated together on the other side of the road. The existing restaurant opposite the appeal site does not appear to provide any outdoor dining facilities. Other nearby restaurants have external seating and tables, but they are within enclosed spaces. These establishments also operate first and foremost as restaurants, with alcohol consumption being ancillary to the main dining function, unlike the proposed use which is solely for a drinking establishment. Even if linked trips occur with the nearby retail units, the introduction of an outdoor seating area creates a new source of noise and activity that does not currently exist.

The proposal would offer some benefit in bringing a vacant unit back into use, in supporting the vitality of the Local Centre, and providing a communal space. The appellant has also suggested conditions for no amplified music or high volume entertainment to be played; to secure sound insulation measures; implement customer management and dispersal policies; and limit delivery and waste collection times. However, none of these considerations would outweigh or overcome the identified harm resulting from the proposed outdoor seating area, which has the capability to extend beyond matters that could be reasonably controlled, or practically enforced, through planning conditions.

For these reasons, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with specific regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy WD 23 of the Wirral Local Plan 2025 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals will be harmonious with neighbouring uses, avoid unacceptable nuisance and disturbance and have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The cited examples of other local micropubs, references APP/23/01554, APP/18/00099 and APP/W4325/W/22/3291212 are not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme as they do not appear to include any outdoor areas. The lack of noise complaints for other similar businesses cannot be relied upon, as those venues may differ significantly in their operation, location, context, and layout. An absence of complaints also does not equate to an absence of harm.

The occupants of the flat above and some local residents have offered their support. There is also social media support for the proposal. Even so, this does not override the harm which I have identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding properties, as a result of an independent assessment thereof.

It appears that the Council did not seek to reduce the opening hours but rather to secure them in order to reduce the impact of the proposals on neighbouring occupiers. Their lack of engagement or suggestion of potential amendments are also matters that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here. The Council did not submit a statement of case. However, this matter has not been determinative in my consideration of the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.