Appeal 6001375

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.

During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared to be the same as that shown on the application plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has been constructed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of surrounding residential properties with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal building is a commercial building situated in the middle of a terrace of other commercial units. To the rear of the terrace are rear yards serving each unit. Beyond this are residential properties and gardens situated on [address].

The front of the site forms part of an active street-scene where there is likely to be noticeable levels of noise at most times, however the rear of the appeal site is markedly different. It is significantly quieter and provides a welcome relief from the busy street at the front. The appeal structure results in increased commercial activity to the rear of the site. Due to the enclosed nature of the structure, allowing it to be used year-round, the development has significantly intensified the use of the land. This has resulted in additional noise and disturbance for occupants of surrounding residential properties, particularly at night-time when occupants may expect a quieter noise environment. Due to the retractable nature of the structure’s roof, the music facilities present, as well as its lightweight construction, and in the absence of any noise surveys I cannot be certain of the sound insulation qualities of the structure. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, taking into account the existing ambiance and levels of background noise I observed at the rear of the site, the development results in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.

I note the appellant’s comments citing the presence of other noise generators in the vicinity of the appeal site in the form of a haulage company and the trainline. However, whilst I observed on my site visit that the trainline resulted in a noticeable degree of noise, due to its intervening distance and in the absence of further details of the operating hours of the haulage business, I am not persuaded that there are sufficient similarities to the noise created by the appeal scheme before me.

The appellant has suggested limiting the hours of the structure to be in use between 11:00 – 21:30. [name] acknowledge that this would control any noise levels late at night or early in the morning this would not mitigate the noise created during the hours of operation which I consider to be unacceptable due to the appeal site’s residential backdrop.

I also acknowledge the previous arrangement to the rear of the appeal site evidenced by the appellant of the presence of tables and chairs historically, which the appellant suggests results in greater noise and disturbance than the appeal development. Whilst removable structures within the same planning unit may be outside the remit of planning control, I am not persuaded that in this instance it would justify the harm I have identified. Based on the submitted evidence, the appeal scheme appears to show a greater intensity of use within a permanent structure, that allows for all-weather and all-year use. The two entities are therefore quite different, and it does not lead me to conclude in favour of the appeal.

I therefore conclude that the development results in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding residential properties with regard to noise and disturbance. The development therefore fails to accord with Policies 37, 96 and 98 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019) which seek amongst other things for there to be no harm or loss of amenity to nearby residents through noise, disturbance and unneighbourly opening hours.

I acknowledge the biodiversity improvements accompanying the development highlighted by the appellant. However, this does not alleviate or outweigh the harm I have identified in regard to the main issue. I note the appellant has referred to the lack of objections to the appeal scheme; however, an absence of objections is a neutral factor in the planning balance. I also note the appellant has highlighted that the scheme provides accessibility for all customers, however I am not persuaded that this was not the case with the previous arrangement nor does it outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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