Appeal 6003604

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for insertion of external staircase to patio courtyard to access existing raised garden. Raised garden to be decked, with the erection of new boundary fencing and covered seating area at The White Hart Inn (PH), [site address] , Dorking, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference MO/2025/02125, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development on the decision notice differs from that on the application form. I have taken the appellant’s use of the former on the appeal form as agreement to the change and used that description in the banner heading.

The appeal site is located within the Dorking Conservation Area (CA), wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The appellant provided a legal opinion relating to licensing and the lawful use of the land in question. Licensing is a separate matter not before me and, whether or not the land is part of the same planning unit as the public house, the proposal would facilitate and so tend to increase its use by members of the public.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises an 18th century public house built into a hill close to a large open space on the edge of Dorking town centre. It has a small seating area to the rear, behind which a wall retains higher land, which is roughly rectangular and level with the first floor, but also with the rear gardens of surrounding houses. These gardens are quite small, around five or so metres in length, and some are the only external amenity space for their houses.

The proposal would erect a steel staircase from the courtyard to the upper area, where timber decking would be fixed, with 2.2m-high fences to three sides and a lower fence atop the retaining wall. Timber seating booths with a corrugated metal roof would be installed along the rear boundary. This would enable customers to use the upper area of the land to the rear of the public house, having previously been unable effectively to access it, certainly in recent times.

The Council’s environmental health officer did not object to the proposal, subject to a boundary fence, hours restrictions and a management plan, and noted that the enclosure of tables in booths would further minimise noise impacts. The officer report, which the decision was based on, states that this would not mitigate noise from outside booths, but as the roof would be between customers standing near it and gardens behind, I consider that it would still have some effect.

Furthermore, customers are likely to prefer to sit in the booths rather than stand or sit outside them, particularly in inclement weather. The risk of noise or disturbance from the decked area not so covered is therefore relatively less than from within the booths. Conditions controlling the hours, location and types of noise created could mitigate and reduce this risk still further, so that it would be unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects on health and quality of life.

Interested parties note that other town centre public houses already have similar facilities and that the noise and disturbance they would experience, particularly in their adjacent gardens, is not worth the size of facility created. [name] accept that some noise and disturbance would result, I do not consider that, with appropriate conditions, harm would be substantial. Furthermore, the quality of the facility with better natural light is the greater contributor to its value.

In relation to this, I note that the public house has no parking or space for a kitchen, thus relies on ‘wet trade’ and that the appellant considers the proposal essential for the survival of the public house. [name] have no viability evidence, I accept that it would attract custom, particularly during the summer months, and thereby promote the town centre and visitor economy by developing the hospitality offer.

I note that a neighbouring garden is used by a disabled person (in respect of whom the Public Sector Equality Duty requires me to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity). Interested parties are also concerned to protect their human rights to peace and privacy.

To the extent that a need for adequate external amenity space in this case may be heightened because of a specific disability, I am content that the proposal is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of supporting town centres and the economy without substantially disadvantaging a disabled individual. I have also had regard to this proportionality in framing effective conditions.

Allowing the appeal may interfere with the interested persons’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and to a private and family life and home, under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but interference with them in this instance would be in pursuance of a legitimate aim. Again, I have sought to minimise any interference by imposing effective conditions.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not unduly harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies EN4 3s) vi), EN4 3u) and EN12 k of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2020-2039 (MVLP).

Interested parties point out that the proposed fences would overshadow gardens. However, the increase in the height of boundary fences would be minimal, and a reasonable part of neighbouring gardens would retain adequate light and outlook, complying with MVLP Policy EN4 part 3s) iii) and v).

The appeal site currently contributes to the CA by its appearance and associated activity, and I agree with Surrey County Council’s heritage officer that the proposal would have no material impact on the special interest of the CA. It would therefore preserve its character or appearance, complying with MVLP Policy EN6.

The Council suggests standard time limit and drawings conditions, which I have amended to the correct version of drawing no. 25/089-02, and to remove a need to complete development or apply for variations. This is because it is unreasonable to require completion and applications for variations are required by law.

The Council suggests restricting the use of the garden area to a period from 10am to 9pm on any day, with an hour’s extension on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The appellant would accept a restriction to no days other than Thursday, Friday and Saturday from 11am to 9pm, together with a prohibition on amplified music. I have imposed the appellant’s suggestions, to minimise nuisance and to ensure that some evenings are without any new disturbance for neighbours.

The Council also suggests conditions requiring a management plan and details of external lighting, which I have amended to remove control of the existing external courtyard, as this does not relate to the proposal. I have added details of CCTV, lighting hours, tables and seating, signs to encourage regard for neighbours and arrangements for review. I have amended the lighting condition for enforceability and for a suburban rather than rural lighting environment.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings and documents: • [name] and Elevations no. 25/089-01 revision B • [name] and Elevations - Option 1 no. 25/089-02 revision A • Proposed Block Plan and OS no. 25/089-03 • [name] & [name] no. 25/089-04 rev. A

The development hereby permitted shall not be used by customers other than (i) from 11am to 9pm on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, and (ii) in accordance with a management plan approved by the Local Planning Authority. No amplified music shall be played on the stairs or in the upper deck area at any time.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first used by customers until a management plan in respect of the upper deck area so developed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall include but not be limited to the: i. frequency with which staff shall attend the upper deck area; ii. process for removing customers 30 minutes prior to closure; iii. means of preventing access outside permitted hours of use; iv. specification, locations, installation and monitoring of CCTV; v. hours of illumination of any external lighting in or of the area; vi. location of seating or tables not shown in approved drawings; vii. details of customer signs to encourage regard for neighbours; viii. means of recording complaints and corrective action taken; and ix. arrangements for the periodic review of the management plan.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first used until the roof of the proposed booths and fences have been installed as detailed in [name] & [name] drawing no. 25/089-04 revision A. These shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the duration of the development.

No external lighting shall be installed or operated other than in accordance with details, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and which must include a specification and locations designed in accordance with environmental zone E3 of the Institution of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 01/21 on The Reduction of [name]. [SCHEDULE ENDS]