Agenda item

(17/02755/FULL1) - 210 High Street, Beckenham, BR3 1EN

Decision:

REFUSED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Retrospective application for introduction of external ancillary seating to the rear of the property to be used for the consumption of hot food. New fencing to rear and retractable canvas awning to be installed over part of the external area.

 

Oral representations in objection to retrospective applications 17/02751/FULL1, 17/02753/FULL1 and 17/02755/FULL1 were received. 

 

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Stephen Wells, in objection to retrospective applications 17/02751/FULL1, 17/02753/FULL1 and 17/02755/FULL1 were also received at the meeting.  He said that the odour and noise from the extraction system required for the change of use to the first floor constituted a nuisance.  There was no sound proofing to the first floor openings to the rear of the restaurant, the windows to the ground floor were not double glazed and the noise was detrimental to the neighbours’ amenity and prevented young children sleeping up until 2 am.  The extension to the ground floor at the rear of the property was ‘shed like’ and had a retractable awning. In this area customers drank and smoked shisha and the music played through speakers caused profound noise and disturbance to local residents.  Councillor Wells’ view was that the site had moved towards being a night club and was no longer a restaurant and he objected to the three retrospective applications and suggested they should be refused and enforcement action commenced.

 

Councillor Mellor reminded Members that permission had previously been granted for the first floor restaurant and he agreed with Councillor Wells’ and objected to the application.

 

Councillors Auld and Joel also objected to the application.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative advised Members that enforcement action in respect of the use on the ground floor was in progress.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

Councillor Mellor requested that the case officer be praised for dealing with this site and the report in a very thorough and precise manner over some considerable time.

 

Supporting documents: