Appeal 6001208

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Conservation Area. However, the Council has raised no concerns regarding whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this conservation area, as no external changes have been proposed. On the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with this assessment.

Although Policy SADM18 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan 2023 (LP) was not cited explicitly within the decision notice, it was referenced in the Council’s officer report and the appellant’s appeal statement. I am therefore satisfied that both parties have had the opportunity to consider and comment on this policy during the appeal process. Given its relevance to the main issue, I have had regard to it in reaching my decision.

In summary, the appellant seeks to open the gym one hour earlier on weekdays, from 05.00, and to regularise structural and internal layout changes.

for the physical expansion and reconfigured internal layout to be recognised.

The main issue is whether or not conditions 4 and 7 are necessary and reasonable in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site is a ground floor gym, which has been expanded through the acquisition of an adjacent property. This extended area is intended to accommodate a new Hyrox Area, free weights/lifting zone, and a new studio. The upper floors above the gym are in use as residential units.

Acoustic documents and addendums have been submitted to inform the identification and implementation of various mitigation measures. These include a range of physical interventions designed to reduce noise and vibration, including the installation of an acoustic ceiling, additional floor matting, shock-absorbing isolation collars and crash pads. Additionally, they recommend moving noisier activities away from sensitive receptors and encasing structural columns to limit the transmission of sound through the building’s frame. Further to these physical measures, it recommends a number of management protocols to control noise associated with the operation of the gym. These include a commitment to maintain music at a reduced volume between 05:00 and 07:00, the use of noise limiters on sound systems and the provision of a formal grievance procedure for local residents. The appellant has also agreed to the implementation of an operational management plan which would incorporate regular boundary checks to ensure that noise is not audible outside the premises.

The planning application letter dated 19 June 2025 states that all recommended noise mitigation and management measures from the noise assessment have been implemented. However, subsequent correspondence from the acoustic consultant dated 31 July 2025 refers to the installation of a new ceiling in the future tense. Similarly, the appellant’s appeal statement dated October 2025 describes physical mitigation works, including the ceiling and isolation matting, in the future tense rather than completed. Consequently, it is unclear whether the identified mitigation measures have been fully installed, partially installed, or remain outstanding. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that the measures claimed have been implemented.

Approximately 15 objections have been received from neighbouring residents, raising concerns about ongoing noise and vibration arising from amplified music and dropped weights. Interested parties report that music remains clearly audible within their dwellings and consider that the glazed façade lacks adequate acoustic attenuation, allowing noise and vibration to escape despite the internal mitigation measures in place. It is also stated that attempts to contact the gym manager have frequently been ineffective, with subsequent complaints dismissed, which calls into question the effectiveness of the proposed management protocols. In addition, residents state that the floor matting has not been sufficient to fully mitigate low-frequency vibration generated by the dropping of heavy weights. They further report hearing shouting by fitness instructors throughout the week, resulting in disturbance that adversely affects both their sleep and their general living

Notwithstanding the lack of clarity as to whether the recommended mitigation measures have been fully deployed, I cannot be satisfied that they would be sufficiently effective in addressing the reported noise and vibration impacts. The acoustic report appears to be narrowly focused on the impact of dropped weights within a limited range of weight thresholds. It is unclear whether weights exceeding those assumed in the theoretical assessment are available for use on site or whether their use would be adequately controlled or restricted by the appellant. Furthermore, there is limited evidence before me to confirm that on-site noise and vibration testing has been undertaken under realistic or worst-case operating conditions from the residential dwellings most directly affected above the gym. In respect of external noise breakout, the acoustic report relies on data derived from the gym’s original planning application dating back to 2018. However, it is evident that the nature and intensity of activities at the gym have evolved since that time, particularly following the expansion and reconfiguration of the available space. As such, the extent to which the historic data remains representative of current operations is unclear. This concern is heightened by the fact that a substantial proportion of the extension comprises glazed elevations with no apparent acoustic treatment, which could materially increase the potential for noise breakout. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to clearly show that the implemented measures are effective in adequately attenuating noise and vibration from the activities of the gym.

Notably, there does not appear to be any specific testing or assessment to verify whether the mitigation measures can prevent sleep disturbance. This is especially relevant given the proposed early-morning operation from 05:00, a time when background noise levels are generally low and residents are especially vulnerable to disturbance. In these circumstances, even relatively modest increases in noise or vibration could have a disproportionate and detrimental effect on residents’ living conditions. Furthermore, the noise sources associated with the gym are likely to be intermittent in nature, which can be more disruptive than constant noise, which serves to heighten their potential to cause disturbance. Notwithstanding the lack of certainty regarding whether the operational management plan has been fully deployed, I note the reported difficulties that neighbouring residents have experienced when raising complaints. There is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that these concerns have been properly and consistently addressed by the appellant. In the absence of convincing empirical evidence to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the deployed measures are sufficient to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The appellant has raised concerns that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) responses have been inconsistent, particularly in concluding that operations prior to 07:00 would be unacceptable, given that permission had previously been granted for a 06:00 opening time. The appellant considers this discrepancy to indicate that the EHO has not fully assessed the information provided, particularly in relation to the proposed noise mitigation measures. [name] acknowledge this discrepancy, this alone does not undermine the overall assessment. Given the continuing lack of clarity as to whether the mitigation measures have been fully deployed, partially deployed or in the process of deployment, it is reasonable for the Council to seek further information. Consequently, while I acknowledge the EHO’s inconsistency in assessing the opening hours, I am not persuaded that it demonstrates a fundamental failure to properly assess the evidence, nor that it carries sufficient weight as to justify the development.

I have considered whether the identified concerns could be addressed through the imposition of a pre-commencement condition requiring the provision of further physical, operational and management mitigation measures, together with worst-case scenario noise testing. However, in the absence of detailed and persuasive evidence demonstrating the feasibility, effectiveness and enforceability of such measures, it remains uncertain whether they would satisfactorily mitigate the noise and vibration arising from the gym’s activities. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that such conditions would be sufficiently precise, nor that they would make the development reasonable in all other aspects.

I conclude that conditions 4 and 7 are necessary and reasonable in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Their removal would conflict with Policy SADM18 of the LP, which seeks to ensure that proposals that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on human health will not be permitted.

I have had regard to the neighbouring [name], which is permitted to operate until 23:45 on weekdays and 01:45 at weekends. However, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the type or level of noise and vibration arising from that use is comparable to that associated with the proposed development. The appellant has also referred to other gyms within the town centre that operate on a 24-hour basis. Nevertheless, limited evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that those premises give rise to similar impacts on neighbouring occupiers. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that these examples provide sufficient justification for the proposed development.

The proposal would generate modest economic benefits by maintaining activity outside of normal shop hours and attracting visitors who use nearby businesses. It would also support the local economy by supporting jobs and engaging local contractors. It would promote community health by extending access to the gym facilities for users with unconventional schedules. In addition, the extended operating hours would enable a more intensive use of an existing building without requiring additional land. Nonetheless, given the limited scale of the proposed development, these benefits are relatively minor in planning terms. Accordingly, they do not outweigh the harm identified under the main issue or the resulting conflicts with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I consider that the conditions meet all the tests for conditions set out in the Framework and based on the information and evidence before me, continue to serve an important planning purpose. These conditions should be retained and consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.