Planning Application 17/00812

Please find below our objections to the above planning application recently submitted by Mr and Mrs Clague.

We originally objected to the original proposal for the creation of the balcony in application 10/01820. We removed our objection on the condition that it would only be used for maintenance (a requirement under the CDM regulations) and for fire escape purposes which was agreed upon by the planning committee. At this time, there was nothing attached to the rear of the building, and nothing shown on the planning application to suggest that the building was going to be extended. We only removed our objection as the requirement to access the balcony would have been minimal for maintenance purposes, i.e. for window cleaning and clearing gutters.

In between this application and Mr and Mrs Clague's next application for the change of use of the building, 12/01240, a 'lean-to' storage area appeared to the rear of the building, which then created an additional entrance to the building, increasing the use of the patio.

The storage area then became an second kitchen area to support what was then the main kitchen in the tea rooms part of the building. Following the re-build after the flood damage, this has now become the main kitchen, and we are subject to a steady stream of staff using the patio for access. The door is routinely left open, and the noise from the building is worse than ever. The appearance of extractor ducts above the building now means we are regularly treated to strong smells of deep fried food which makes our house smell like a fast food restaurant. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been planning permission granted for this part of the building, or its subsequent change of use. We also struggle to see how access to this part of the building via the balcony classes as maintenance.

Poor planning on behalf of the applicants means that during evening functions, food prepared in the new kitchen cannot easily be carried through the function room to their serving area, and it has now become the norm for staff to carry it from the kitchen and into the fire escape doors on the patio. This creates more door banging and noise, and this keeps our children awake as it continues beyond the 8pm cut off for using entrances other than those facing the pond as specified in under section 7.b of their alcohol license.

People using the cafe during the day routinely use the balcony, and we regularly have children running up and down and shouting from it. Mr and Mrs Clague have been unwilling for many years to do anything to prevent the use of the balcony by people using the café during the day. Simple signage by the stairs would probably have sufficed to keep the majority of people off the balcony. Whilst not being able to lock the fire doors, the installation of an alarmed push bar, or a panic bolt, would prevent people from using the balcony and would have cost less than the planning application fee.

In addition to the strong smell of greasy food, the creation of the staff smoking area below the patio means that our garden also smells strongly of cigarette smoke, which is disgusting and not what we want for ourselves or our two young children when they are playing outside.

The screening referred to in Mr and Mrs Clague’s accompanying letter was only ever agreed upon as a measure to prevent people inside the building from looking into our property, and is wholly insufficient for shielding us from the additional noise which the balcony seating area would create. Trees and shrubs are not permanent fixtures and cannot be used to justify us having privacy. None of the methods of screening that the applicants refer to block out the smell of cigarette smoke either, which will only get worse as people using the venue will use this as a smoking area.

The Noise Report carried out by DEFA in August 2013 was done prior to Mr Clague’s alterations to the river which has resulted in most of the water being diverted through the pond and into Mr Clague’s water turbine. This report was also carried out when the rear building was a storeroom, and was closed off to the main part of the building. Now that it is used as a kitchen and serving area, the noise carries through more than it did previously.

These two issues have changed the parameters of the tests conducted in the noise report, and as such it cannot be used as justification for anything.

The alcohol license issued by the Licensing Court on the 21st May 2015 states the conditions of the license are that “all doors and windows facing surrounding properties to be kept closed for the duration of the function.”

Mr and Mrs Clague and their staff at the venue regularly struggle to meet the conditions of their alcohol license. Evening events regularly disrupt our peace, and prevent our children from getting to sleep. We have had beer cans thrown at our property, and guests leaving the premises have been seen to urinate on our gate. We have had to contact the Central Alcohol Unit on many occasions to try and get Mr and Mrs Clague, and their designated officials to stick to their conditions and to stop ruining our right to peace and quiet.

To grant Mr and Mrs Clague permission to use the balcony will only further erode our peace and quiet, and cause great upset and distress to our family. We feel that this application by Mr and Mrs Clague is nothing more than an attempt to harass our family as they try to erode our peace. Mr and Mrs Clague didn't build a venue next to their home in acres of countryside and ruin their evenings and weekends - they decided to do it next to ours.

We trust that the committee will uphold the previous conditions set down as part of 10/01820 and give us some hope of being able to still enjoy our home and gardens.

Yours sincerely,

Ian & Gillian Horsey