Appeal 6002349

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of one storey enclosure to the rear of the [site address] at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00726/FUL, and subject to the following conditions:

The level of noise emitted from any gambling machine within the rear extension shall not exceed the background noise level, expressed as LA90, at any time.

No recorded or live music shall be permitted in the rear extension at any time.

No amplified sound system shall be used in the rear extension at any time.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA). The appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested parties views were sought. Nevertheless, the document does not fundamentally alter the scheme in terms of its design, layout and scale. Additionally, I note that no comments were received from neighbouring residents during the application process nor the appeal process, and as part of the appeal, the Council have had the opportunity to view and comment on the NIA. I have therefore assessed the appeal on the basis of the additional information.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise.

The appeal site is within a mixed residential and commercial area in a town centre location. Immediately to the south is [address], a development of 5-6 storey residential flats. To the northeast is the main high street, and to the north west is a pub with a beer garden. The front of the building faces the main high street, where I observed numerous commercial units, including retail shops and restaurants typical of such a location.

The rear of the appeal site fronts Wellstones. Although the adjacent beer garden features attractive brick pier walls, I observed Wellstones to function primarily as a service road, providing access to car parking and the rear of properties fronting [address], [address] and [address], as well as access to nearby residential flats, including [address]. The street scene has a functional appearance with security fencing, tall brick walls, fire escapes and roller shutters of rear service yards being dominant features within the street scene.

The single-storey extension, subject of this appeal, is rendered and painted dark blue. A blank elevation, with the exception of a fire door, faces Wellstones. Although the colour and materials contrast with the more muted tones of the brick wall of the adjacent beer garden and the tall brick wall on the opposite side of Wellstones, the extension does not appear unduly stark or incongruous. Given its modest scale, shallow pitched roof, and the close presence of the [address] residential development covered externally in white and orange cladding, the finish and design of the extension, set against the grey cladding used at the rear of the host premises, is of an appropriate size, design and finish within the surrounding street scene context.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the size, design and finish of the rear extension does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policies QD6.1, QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038. Together, amongst other matters, these seek to ensure development is of a high quality design that relates well to its local context.

The appeal site currently operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The rear extension is intended to house gaming machines and features a partially open roof. Consequently, there is the potential for noise from the machines and/or users to generate noise which could cause disturbance to nearby residents.

The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at the Council has referenced ongoing noise complaints at the appeal site, however, limited information has been provided as to the specific nature of these complaints. I note that no objections were received from interested parties during the application process, nor have any been received during the course of the appeal. Moreover, the EHO has not specifically objected to the proposal, and instead suggests several conditions to mitigate potential harm and to address existing issues, such as prohibiting speakers and live music within the rear extension.

The submitted Noise Impact Assessment, conducted by Hepworth Acoustics Ltd, assumes 24/7 operation of the extension. It concludes that, taking into account background noise levels, the distance to the nearest residential windows, and the sound reduction provided by the existing building envelope, the trading noise would fall within acceptable limits. This assessment, based on a busy period within the bingo hall, comprising game play and customers chatting, indicates that noise levels would remain below existing measured night time background levels. I have no reason to disagree with these findings.

Given the findings of the Noise Impact Assessment, and in the absence of any technical evidence to the contrary, I consider that, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions, noise levels would be acceptable within the context of the site. The use of the extension would thus not cause material harm to the living conditions of the neighbours in terms of noise. Accordingly, the development would not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would accord with Policy CC8.5 of the Watford Local Plan 2021- 2038, which requires a noise assessment where development is noise-generating or the surrounding area is sensitive to noise.

[site address] is a locally listed building due, in part, to its attractive brick built frontage with chimneys and contributes positively to the streetscape of the [address]. Given the modest scale of the extension and its location at the rear of the property, the extension has a neutral effect on the non-designated heritage asset. It is of note that the Conservation Officer also found no harm in this regard.

The Council’s suggested conditions have been considered in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. As the development is retrospective, the standard time limit and plans conditions are not necessary.

Conditions prohibiting the use of speakers and live or recorded music and limiting the noise from the gaming machines within the extension are necessary to ensure no adverse effects to the living conditions of nearby residents.

Given that the Noise Impact Assessment was based on a 24 hour, 7 days a week operation and found that the proposal would not cause any material adverse effects to nearby residents, and with the imposition of the forementioned conditions, I consider that a condition restricting the operating hours of the rear extension is not necessary.

The Council also suggested a condition requiring the submission of a noise impact assessment to ensure noise impacts are mitigated. Given that an assessment has already been submitted and with the imposition of conditions restricting noise from the gaming machines, prohibiting the use of speakers and preventing live and recorded music from being played, I find that this condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, and subject to the conditions, the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR